Type of Review: Annual Review
Project Title: Climate Investment Funds (Previously
Environmental Transformation Fund)
Date started: 24 Feb 2009
September 2013
Date review undertaken: July-
Introduction and Context
This is the fourth annual review by DFID and DECC of
A. the Climate Investment Funds
B. the Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF) and
C. the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF).
A. The Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) consist of four programmes or funding windows to
help developing countries pilot low-emissions and climate resilient development:




Clean Technology Fund (CTF) provides scaled-up financing to low & middle income
countries to demonstrate, deploy & transfer low carbon technologies to initiate
transformation to low emission development & reduce GHG emissions.
Forest Investment Programme (FIP) helps low income countries plan and implement
projects to improve forest management and reduce the pressure on forest ecosystems,
reduces emissions from deforestation & forest degradation and catalyses additional
resources, including from the private sector.
Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR) mainstreams resilience in
development planning and supports country-led development of holistic adaptation
programmes, eg growing drought resistant crops, improving irrigation & flood protection,
in poor and vulnerable countries.
Scaling-Up Renewable Energy Programme (SREP) supports energy security and lowemission climate resilient development in developing countries, increases renewable
energy services and energy access, creates economic opportunity & catalyses private
sector investment.
With CIF support, 48 developing countries are piloting transformations in clean technology,
sustainable management of forests, increased energy access through renewable energy, and
climate-resilient development.
B. The Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF) aims to slow the rate of deforestation in the Congo
Basin by developing the capacity of people and institutions in the Congo Basin countries to
manage their forests, and help local communities find livelihoods that are consistent with the
conservation of forests.
C. The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) assists developing countries in their
efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and foster
conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks
(all activities commonly referred to as "REDD+") by providing value to standing forests.
1|Page
What support is the UK providing?
In 2009 the Environmental Transformation Fund (ETF) approved £800m for these three
funds: £735m for the CIFs; £50m for CBFF; and £15m for FCPF. Funds were equally
provided by DFID and DECC.
The £735m CDEL contribution to the CIFs (with an additional pledge of £25m) was split across
the CIFs as follows:
CIF Trust Fund/Programme
Total Funds/£m
Clean Technology Fund (CTF)
385
Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR)
225
Forest Investment Programme (FIP)
100
Scaling-up Renewable Energy Programme (SREP)
50
Total
760
From the International Climate Fund (ICF) there have been two further approvals to the
CIFs, in November 2011 £285m and in November 2012 £90m. The total £375m split between
CIF programmes and UK Government (DFID & DECC) departments is as follows.
HMG Total
HMG Total
HMG Total
CDEL / RDEL
2011/12 (£m)
2012/13 (£m)
Total (£m)
% CDEL
CTF
£150
£75
£225
100%
PPCR
£47
£53
£100
30%
SREP
£0
£50
£50
100%
Totals
£197
£178
£375
What are the expected results?
The outcome statement is to Transform energy supply and demand, and forest use, and
increase resilience to climate change in developing countries.
However, defining outputs in each of the CIF business cases has been a challenge given that
the CIFs results frameworks, at the Trust Fund level, have been undergoing development, with
no defined targets at the programme/funding window level. In order to assess project progress
we need to assess the programme as a whole and not just the impact of the UK’s contribution;
as this is a multilateral fund, we can only use the results frameworks as agreed by the CIFs
2|Page
governance.
As there have been 3 business cases relevant to this AR – the original business case covering
all 3 funds, and 2 further BCs for the additional contributions to the CIFs, the logframe and
expected results have been reviewed each time, particularly as our understanding of the ICF
and what we want to achieve with UK funding has developed.
The 2009 project memorandum for the first contribution of £800m set out some expected results
and also a logframe with outcomes and outputs, against which previous annual reviews have
been conducted. The eight agreed outputs (which didn’t include targets or milestones) were as
follows (with 1-6 referring to the CIFs, 7 relating to the FCPF and 8 relating to the CBFF):
1. CIFs investment plans and development strategies that integrate low carbon pathways and
climate resilience;
2. Infrastructure, capacity and financing for low carbon development and climate resilience;
3. Learning about piloting, demonstration, replication and transformation captured and shared in
countries and across countries;
4. Learning about piloting, demonstration, replication and transformation captured and shared
across projects, programmes and funds;
5. Learning about piloting, demonstration, replication and transformation captured and shared
globally;
6. CIFs governed with legitimacy and inclusion;
7. FCPF Readiness Fund assists developing countries to reach a capacity level at which they will
be ready to participate in a future system for positive incentives for REDD+; and Carbon Fund
tests and evaluates incentive payments for REDD+ in approximately five developing countries;
8. The CBFF alleviates poverty and addresses climate change through reducing the rate of
deforestation of the forests of the Congo Basin, with effective participation of Congo Basin
countries in climate change initiatives deriving sufficient benefits for conservation of resources
and enhancing livelihoods of populations living in the forest.
The project memo did, however, set out the following expected results, which provided some
specific targets which previous annual reviews have used to assess progress against the above
outputs – particularly output 1:

Up to 15 countries will be provided with additional finance to support the development and
deployment of clean technologies, helping these countries onto a low carbon development path.

Up to 11 countries or regions will be provided with support to develop a climate resilient
development plan and additional finance to support the implementation of this plan, thereby
building climate resilience. Funds through the CIFs will be complementary to existing
development plans in recipient countries.

Between five and ten countries will be given support to implement national strategies for reducing
emissions from avoided deforestation and degradation.

A further five to ten low income countries will be given support to increase energy access and
their low carbon development growth potential by developing new renewable energy sources.

By piloting approaches to climate financing mechanisms, the funds will also provide lessons and
knowledge to inform discussions on the future financing of climate change, including the
negotiations under the UNFCCC.
3|Page
The CIF business case in 20111 set out examples of the results that would be expected in such
countries as India, Nigeria, Kenya, Tajikistan and Bangladesh:
The results from the CIFs will be measured (in part) by2 the following indicators – these are
specifically intended to be comparable to the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) being used to
measure results from the UK’s investments through the International Climate Fund (ICF):







The tonnes of CO2 avoided.
The number of households, in areas of risk, whose livelihoods have improved.
The number of people with access to climate resilient housing and shelter.
The numbers of jobs created by CIF funding in low carbon development.
The electricity generated from renewable energy.
The number of households with access to electricity.
The amount of private and other sources of funding increases through leverage.
The Business Case in 20123 for an additional contribution of £75m to the Clean Technology Fund set out
two sets of results that were expected through the provision of additional finance to the CTF. Firstly, real
world outputs, outcomes and impacts at the country level, and secondly, contributing to an improved
international architecture for climate finance, both through progress in the reforms of the CIFs and
through learning lessons for the GCF and improving donor coordination.
Key benefits expected from the additional £75m contribution include:

GHG emission reductions - The investment is expected to deliver approximately 7.3 MtCO2e4 in
emissions savings that are directly attributable to the UK CTF investment and about another 30.8
MtCO2e due to the co-finance that is leveraged from MDBs, the private sector and domestic
governments. These estimates are conservative and based on 29 approved projects under
country Investment Plans that preceded those of India, Chile and Nigeria, and are therefore only
indicative of what the £75m will deliver in terms of GHG emission savings.
 Leverage of other sources of finance - Based on the aforementioned 29 projects, the investment
is estimated to leverage £570m5 in co-financing from others, primarily MDBs and other donors
(50%), the private sector (30%) and domestic governments (20%). Based on the pipeline of
projects that the £75m could fund, the amount of leveraged funding may in fact be significantly
higher.
 Development benefits - Significant co-benefits are expected to be delivered by the intervention,
including increased energy security, improved access to energy, job creation and health benefits
due to reduced air pollution. All CTF projects need to demonstrate that they have positive
development impacts.
 Demonstration and learning effects - The investment will have important demonstration effects in
India, Chile, Nigeria and Turkey. This is expected to lead to wider replication and transformation,
both in-country and globally.
 Improving the international finance architecture and donor coordination - An additional
contribution to the CTF is expected to help the UK accelerate reform of the CIFs, including on
speeding up disbursement, reporting on results and establishing portfolio-level risk management.
The CTF provides important lessons for the design of the GCF and its governance structure
supports donor coordination and equal participation from developed and developing countries.
1
http://projects.dfid.gov.uk/iati/Document//3717537
These are a subset of the proposed core indicators across the CIFs. For the full document see:
http://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/Joint%20Inf%202%20%20Implem
entation%20CIF%20results%20framework.pdf
3 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/200480/ICF_Business_Case__Additional_Contribution_to_the_Clean_Technology_Fund.pdf
4 Consisting of approximate 3.3 MtCO e from leveraged private sources and 4 MtCO e from direct UK investment.
2
2
5 In present value terms.
2
4|Page
What is the context in which UK support is provided?
The original Programme Memo (2009) set out the context as follows:
The impacts of climate change on development are potentially great. Even if mitigation targets
are met, the need to deal with the projected impact of climate change will require additional
finance and capacity in developing countries. Negotiations under the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are underway. These aim to agree and set in place
a new global deal that includes financing mechanisms for climate change adaptation and
mitigation beyond 2012. However, the pace of climate change means developing countries
cannot wait until then to start investing in adaptation and mitigation. We need to start spending
at scale now in order to build experience to understand how best to support developing
countries in responding to climate change and to inform UNFCCC negotiations and the creation
of financing mechanisms created under the UNFCCC.
There is a short window of opportunity to help set the global response on the right track. The
current set of international institutions and financial instruments is geared towards ‘business as
usual’ high carbon growth and is ill-equipped for facilitating climate resilient investments. There
has been a proliferation of new, often bilateral, mechanisms to help developing countries tackle
climate change. Not only have these been uncoordinated, but they are of insufficient scale.
Through its support for the CIFs the ETF aims to address this knowledge gap by testing
approaches to delivering climate change finance. In recognition of the need to avoid preempting outcomes of negotiations for a new global deal on climate change, the CIFs are subject
to a sunset clause, and are due to be completed by 2012 (although funding will probably be
disbursed until around 2014).
Since then, the CIFs, CBFF and FCPF have been established. The CIFs, in particular, are recognised
as a multilateral fund able to provide finance at scale alongside other international climate funds, such
as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Adaptation Fund, though these have different roles,
such as providing capacity building and technical support for planning. Progress has also been made
on developing a new financing mechanism, the Green Climate Fund, that was approved in Durban in
December 2011. Since then the Green Climate Fund has held four board meetings to develop the
design of the new mechanism. The Fund was not ready to receive funding in 2012 and it remains
unlikely that the Green Climate Fund will be ready to disburse finance in 2013.
Section A: Detailed Output Scoring
In the last Annual Review it was recommended that – as the CIFs’ own results frameworks are
evolving – that the UK’s CIF logical framework should be updated for this annual review so that
it provides a better assessment of the actual results being delivered by the CIFs. While
significant progress has been made on the CIF results frameworks, they don’t yet provide
aggregated targets across programmes. This means that we are unable either to combine
results within the 4 separate funds to see how each is progressing, or to generate an overall
picture of the CIF’s quantitative progress as a whole. Amendments have been made to the CIF
logframe, with outputs, indicators and targets updated, in line with the recommendation from the
last review and agreed with DECC. The number of CIF outputs has also been reduced,
amalgamating the 3 learning outputs (see above) into just one. However, these changes are
5|Page
incremental changes, mirroring those made in the CIFs, and it would be expected that by the
time of the next review further changes to the outputs and indicators should be made. To allow
progress to be measured in this annual review we have had to focus on the design of the CIFs,
Investment Plans and projects rather than actual results (e.g. installed capacity in megawatts),
not least because large scale infrastructure projects take a long time to plan and then build.
However, there are more specific results to assess in this review than there have been in the
past 3 reviews, which does represent progress.
Output 1: CIF Investment plans and projects approved; funding disbursed and projects
implemented that provide development in low carbon pathways and climate resilience.
Output 1 score and performance description:
B – Outputs moderately did not meet expectations.
Against the revised indicators in the UK’s CIF logical framework, which provide a better measurement
of this output, the MDB/CIFs own targets for project approval and disbursement of funding have not
been met. However, the number of Investment Plans approved is greater than initial CIF expectations.
Progress against expected results:
The indicator for this output was previously “The number of plans/strategies approved that integrate
low carbon/climate resilient development.” Following the recommendation in the 2012 annual review
the indicators for this output have been expanded to include project approvals and also disbursement
of funds. As a result the Indicators are now:
1) Number of Investment Plans approved in target low carbon and climate resilience countries.
2) Following Investment Plan approvals, projects that aid low carbon development and climate
resilience are developed and approved by Trust Fund Committees and MDBs.
3) Project Implementation underway, funding disbursed – measured in $ cash payments disbursed
from MDBs to recipients.
Output 1 will now fully measure the full life cycle of projects, from Investment Plan approval through to
implementation. Given the long-term nature of the CIF programme it is important that progress on all of
these can be measured in recognition that these are the stages of progress which need to occur before
actual results can be achieved.
Against the revised project indicators, which provide a better measurement of this output, the
MDB/CIFs own targets for project approval and disbursement of funding have not been met. However,
the number of Investment Plans approved is greater than initial CIF expectations.
Progress against Indicator 1 – Number of Investment Plans approved
Window
CTF
SREP
PPCR
FIP
Projected6
15
5-10
11
5-10
Actual7
16
9
18
7
Progress against Indicator 2 – Number of Projects approved
6
7
Projected by the Trust Fund and agreed by the fund committees during semi-annual meetings
https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/funds-and-programs
6|Page
Window
CTF
SREP
PPCR
FIP
Projected8
98
21
49
6
Actual9
41
3
26
2
Progress against Indicator 3 - Funding disbursed
The following tables from the CIF Disbursement reports provide actual progress against the expected
or projected (by the CIF Trust Fund) disbursement of funds from the CIF Trust Funds to MDBs to
implement projects.
CIF Disbursements
CTF (USDm)
Annual Projected
Annual (Actual)
Cumulative (Projected)
Cumulative (Actual)
PPCR (USDm)
Annual (projected)
Annual (Actual)
Cumulative (Projected)
Cumulative (Actual)
SREP (USDm)
Annual (projected)
Annual (Actual)
Cumulative (Projected)
Cumulative (Actual)
FIP (USDm)
Annual (projected)
Annual (Actual)
Cumulative (Projected)
Cumulative (Actual)
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY2011
0
46
98
0
0
0
0
46
144
0
0
0
FY2011
0
1.7
0
1.9
FY2011
0
0
0
0
FY2011
0
0
0
0
FY 2012
220
85
364
85
FY 2012
4.2
8.9
4.2
10.6
FY 2012
2.5
0.5
2.5
0.5
FY 2012
0
0.8
0
0.8
FY 201310
500
107
865
192
FY 2013
31.5
6.5
35.7
17.1
FY 2013
5.1
0.7
7.6
1.2
FY 2013
1.8
0.5
1.8
1.3
Key points

Disbursement of funds for the CTF remains behind schedule for the 2nd year in succession.

Disbursement of funds for PPCR projects, in 2013 (the first year when significant funds were
due to be disbursed) is behind schedule.

For SREP while expected disbursement for 2013 wasn’t particularly significant, the very low
8
Oct 2011 & April 2012 Semi-annual reports.
Semi-annual reports.
10 From CIF Disbursement Report December 2012 – note figures for 2013 only represent the first half of “FY2013”
i.e. July-December 2012.
9
7|Page
disbursement could suggest concerns for subsequent years.

Given the level of expected funds to be disbursed in the last year, while behind schedule, not
too much can be implied for the FIP at this stage.
Conclusion
As reported in previous annual reviews, the progress against the rate of Investment Plans being
approved demonstrates a positive picture and better than initially expected. However, following
approval of Investment Plans it has taken longer than anticipated to get approval of projects and the
subsequent disbursal of funds from the Trust Funds, which has led to delays in implementation. We
have therefore scored this as a B.
This delay in disbursement is most obvious in the CTF, which due to starting ahead of other CIF
programmes, is now moving towards the implementation phase. However, reasons have been
provided as to why disbursement is not in line with forecasts, and this largely relates to the specific
country context in question. In the May 2013 Semi-annual report of the CTF it notes some reasons for
delays including:
Country readiness and conditions for transformation were not always in place; readiness of
projects was not always taken into consideration when preparing investment plans; changes in
sectors required new solutions; some countries faced unexpected political events; some
technologies and markets turned out to be more challenging than originally anticipated; and the
inability to make local currency transactions using CTF resources has also proved to be a
constraint for private sector investments11.
The recent Interim Report of the Independent Evaluation of the CIFs includes an analysis of status of
the CIF portfolio of Investment Plans and projects. This is largely consistent with the above
assessment, but also provides other factors related to delays. It summarises its initial findings as
follows12:



While elapsed times to achieve investment plan endorsement have ranged from 2 to almost 40
months, the large majority have been developed without significant delay. All but five SCF
investment plans have been endorsed within the target timeframes, for a success rate of 80
percent. More than half of CTF investment plans were prepared in eight months or less.
Implications for faster/slower investment plan preparation in terms of the extent of stakeholder
participation and the quality of the plan will be further explored.
Timing expectations under Phase II of the programming cycle (investment plan endorsement to
project disbursement) are better defined and more closely monitored. The majority of delays are
experienced between investment plan endorsement and submission of a project for Committee
approval. More than 40% of CIF projects are encountering delays moving from endorsement to
Committee approval, and the rate of submission of projects and programs for CTF and PPCR
projects has been slowing down.
Country and project focus (technology or sector) seem to be most closely related to delays. For
example, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey have received Committee approval for more than
70% of their projects; incorporation of project concepts already on the drawing board into their
CTF investment plans may help explain quicker project preparation and approval. Under PPCR,
all endorsed projects with a disaster risk management component have achieved approval,
possibly because these projects are most closely aligned with national development strategies
or priorities.
We have therefore scored this as a B.
11
https://climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/CTF_TFC.11_3_CTF_semi_annual_op
erational_report..pdf
12 http://www.cifevaluation.org/news.html (See page 108).
8|Page
Recommendations:
The additional indicators added to this output have provided a fuller picture of the reality of measuring
the progress of the CIFs in project approval and then implementation. Over the last two years, it has
become increasingly apparent that the CIFs are demonstrating slower than expected approval of
projects and subsequent disbursement of funding. The UK should continue to push for progress with
delayed projects and over programming so that projects that are ready can be funded and, ultimately,
the slowest projects may not be funded. This has been agreed by the CTF Trust Fund Committee and
we could take the same approach in the other programmes too. At the CTF Trust Fund Committee in
May 2013, the co-chairs summary noted13:
The Trust Fund Committee notes that a significant number of projects scheduled for submission
to the Committee during FY13 were not submitted as proposed. The Committee further notes
the project approval calendar for FY14 and urges the MDBs and countries to submit the project
proposals to the Committee for funding approval in the proposed timeframes and to work
closely to expedite the implementation of the projects.
In addition to progress in projects and over-programming, the UK should also consider pushing the
CIFs / recipient countries/ MDBs to set more realistic targets for project approval and disbursement.
However, caution needs to be taken not to re-set the clock on target dates as this would be a
disincentive to speed up delivery.
The above recommendations respond to the need to be more realistic about expectations from the CIF
portfolio and supporting reform of CIF pipelines (i.e. moving to over-programming) that are just now
being put in place for CTF and could potentially be put in place for other CIF programmes to speed up
the CIF portfolio. At this stage there are no plans or committee decisions to deliberately remove the
slowest projects from the pipeline, but this is an option that may be considered depending on success
of the over-programming model in speeding up disbursement.
Impact Weighting (%): 25%
Revised since last Annual Review? N
Risk: Medium
Revised since last Annual Review? Y – with the change of the indicators to this output to make it a
more realistic measure of progress with the CIFs, the risk of delays will remain a possibility.
Output 2: Financing and Infrastructure provided and capacity improved for low carbon
development and climate resilience
Output 2 score and performance description:
A – Outputs met expectations.
This output has been scored against expected results from the CIFs using information currently
available. The full picture is still far from complete (but should be close to being complete by
December 2013). Based on the partial picture the expectation is that the CIFs are still on track to
13
https://climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/Summary_of_Co_Chairs_CTF_TFC_A
pril2013_.pdf.pdf
9|Page
deliver significant results, with no indication that this will be below what was expected.
Progress against expected results:
The previous indicator for this output was the “Summation of CTF, SREP, FIP and PPCR outputs with
respect to infrastructure provided, capacity developed and financing provided”. No milestones or
targets could be set because results frameworks were not established and so it was impossible to
judge whether performance was above or below that expected. 2012 saw the agreement of revised
results frameworks for three of the CIF programmes; these still need to be fully populated with
milestones and targets, but their establishment is an important and positive step forward. Furthermore
the CIF Admin Unit has developed detailed core indicators and guidance within these results
frameworks. This will lead to these results frameworks including baselines and milestones against
these indicators by December 2013. This of course will not result in actual results e.g. CO2 savings
until projects are underway.
Until the CIF’s Annual Report in December 2013 provides formal aggregated baselines and expected
results, it is not possible to assess the level of expected results set out in annual reports or project
documents14. For the purpose of this Annual Review assessment has only been carried out across the
three funding windows (CTF, PPCR, SREP) where the results frameworks have been revised15. For
FIP there is a process underway to identify ‘common indicators’, which will enable aggregation of
results. This should be approved at the November 2013 FIP sub-committee. Core indicators for the 3
programmes where some assessment can be made are:
CTF:





Tons of GHG emissions reduced or avoided
Volume of direct finance leveraged through CTF funding – disaggregated by public and private
finance
Installed capacity (MW) as a result of CTF interventions
Number of additional passengers (disaggregated by men and women, if feasible) using low
carbon public transport as a result of CIF intervention
Annual energy savings as a result of CTF interventions (GWh)
PPCR:
 Degree of Integration of climate change in national, including sector, planning
 Evidence of strengthened government capacity and coordination mechanism to mainstream
climate resilience
 Quality and extent to which climate responsive instruments/investment models are developed
and tested
 Extent to which vulnerable households, communities, businesses and public sector services
use improved PPCR supported tools, instruments, strategies and activities to respond to
climate variability or climate change
 Number of people supported by the PPCR to cope with the effects of climate change
SREP:
 Increased public and private investments ($) in targeted subsector(s) per country per year
 Annual electricity output from RE as a result of SREP interventions (GWh)
 Number of women and men, businesses and community services benefiting from improved
access to electricity and fuels as a result of SREP interventions
Information currently available across the programmes is as follows:
Clean Technology Fund (CTF)
14
Some of this aggregation was provided in the May 2013 CIF Semi-annual reports, while other aggregation has
been carried out by the UK.
15 https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/measuring-results
10 | P a g e

The overall project portfolio under the CTF includes more than 100 projects.

As of 15 March 201316, the CTF Trust Fund Committee has already approved $2.3 billion in
funding for 33 projects, which have been fully developed with expected results (a clearer picture
of the expected results across the full CTF portfolio will be available in the December 2013
Annual Report – which will aggregate expected results for the first time). Based on approved
projects the CTF17 is expected to contribute towards projects that:

deliver reduced CO2 emissions of 594 MTCO2e.

secure $19.2bn in co-financing from governments, MDBs, and other sources
including the private sector. 36% of co-financing for these projects comes from
private sector sources.

deliver 6.4GW of additional installed renewable energy capacity (from 13 projects)


deliver annual energy savings of 4,492 GWh of annual energy savings (from 3
projects)
There are some early actual results from CTF funded Investment Plans. This includes projects
under the Turkey CTF Investment Plan which was one of the first Investment Plans to receive
endorsement18.
Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR)
The PPCR has a portfolio of 67 projects and programmes.
As of 15 March 2013, the PPCR funding for 26 projects has been approved by the Sub-Committee
totalling $399 million ($254 million in grants and $144.8 million in near-zero interest credits).
These resources are expected to leverage a total of $512 million in co-financing (ratio of 1:1.28).

Initial expected results from existing programmes are based on 10 approved projects, where at
least 5.09 million “people will be supported (direct) to cope with the effects of climate change”.
Of these 2.29 million are attributable to the UK (based on a 45% burden-share).

At March 2013, only 10 of the approved projects have a ‘number of people’ figure in a form that
can be aggregated. This will be a significant underestimate as some projects are only currently
recording households or communities so the numbers need to be scaled up. Many relevant
projects do not yet have this indicator at all but will integrate it now that it has been agreed as a
core indicator by the sub-committee.

It should be noted that there are a significant number of assumptions in these figures. The CIF
Admin Unit are working on a collection of expected results from participating countries and
should be able to provide a more robust figure in the Autumn.
Scaling Up Renewable Energy Programme in Low Income Countries (SREP)19
16
https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/CTF_TFC.11_3_CTF_semi_annu
al_operational_report..pdf, page 13
17 It should be noted that the CTF does not use the UK’s methodology for attributing expected results based on the
proportion of public funding.
18 Econoler (2013) Impact Assessment report of Clean Technology Fund in Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency Market in Turkey.
11 | P a g e
As of 15 March 201320, $239m of SREP financing is expected to contribute towards the following
results from 23 projects (within 8 Investment Plans):

Develop 593.1 MW of renewable energy capacity (from 16 projects).

Secure $1.729bn in co-financing from governments, MDBs, and other sources including the
private sector.

Lead to improved energy access for 1.78m people (from 7 projects), including cookstoves for
50,000 people.
It should also be noted that the robustness of this information is also weak at present as projects have
not undergone more detailed due diligence and appraisal.
Conclusion
The above, while not yet providing a complete picture of expected results across the CIF portfolio of
250 projects, does start to indicate a significant level of results. As the recent Interim Report of the
Independent Evaluation of the CIFs indicates21:
CTF projects approved as of December 2012 are expected to make substantial GHG emission
reductions—roughly 525 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2eq) over their
lifetime (which range from about 10 to 30 years, averaging about 20)—and install nearly 7 GW
of renewable energy capacity. With replication potentials often estimated at five- to ten-fold,
these projects may have the potential to yield a remarkable 2.6 to 5.2 billion tCO2eq if
implemented and upscaled as anticipated.
We have therefore scored this as an A.
Recommendations:
The next 12 months will be a critical period in developing a clearer picture of the expected results and
subsequently actual results delivered by the CIFs. The following in particular will help provide greater
clarity on expected results:

The final report of the Independent Evaluation and the response to issues around results
methodologies and calculations by the CIF AU and MDBs will be critical.

In December 2013 the first collation of baselines and expected results (and actual results in the
case of CTF) should be closely scrutinised for example in terms of quality of data.
The implications are that this output (and as such the overall logframe) will need to be amended by the
time of the next Annual Review with significant changes not only to the indicators and targets, but also
the wording of the output itself, which currently does not adequately reflect the breadth of results
expected under the CIFs.
Impact Weighting (%): 25%
Revised since last Annual Review? N
19
See SREP semi-annual report May 2013 annex 1:
https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/SREP_SC.9_3_SREP_semi_ann
ual_operational_report.pdf
20 See SREP semi-annual report May 2013 annex 1:
https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/SREP_SC.9_3_SREP_semi_ann
ual_operational_report.pdf
21 http://www.cifevaluation.org/news.html (See page 69).
12 | P a g e
Risk: Medium
Revised since last Annual Review? N
Output 3: Learning is captured on the pilots – including on implementation, replication
and transformation as well as about different financing models; and shared widely in
and across countries, across projects, programmes and funds, and also globally.
Output 3 score and performance description:
A – Outputs met expectations.
Learning is a key part of the CIFs and as highlighted by the recent Interim Report of the Independent
Evaluation over the last year the CIFs have significantly increased the amount of effort put into learning
and sharing learning at global and country level.
Progress against expected results:
Previously the learning and knowledge outputs were split into 3 separate outputs; for this annual
review we have merged the 3 outputs into one.
Indicators for this output were the same across all three previous outputs and remain the same for the
new project output 3



Number of knowledge assets created;
Frequency of use of knowledge assets and
Level of client satisfaction with knowledge assets.
Progress against expected results:
As highlighted in the previous review, a significant knowledge asset for the CIFs is the Independent
Evaluation. The Interim Report of the evaluation has been recently completed and is referred to
throughout this review. The following sections highlight progress against each of the above indicators.
Number of knowledge assets created
The number and range of learning products continues to increase. The recent independent evaluation
has looked at this increase from 2009-2012, and states that the number of CIF learning products and
events has grown significantly each year, with most recent years seeing the greatest increase - 10
learning products in total were developed by end of 2010, 26 in total by the end of 2011, and 52 in total
by the end of 2012.
CIF learning Products and Events by Year
2012
2011
2010
2009
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Number of learning producs and events
13 | P a g e
There has also been a wider range of different learning products in 2012-13, Pilot country meetings
make up the majority of learning products, followed by web-based and online tools (virtual discussions,
webinars, and online workshops); as well as publications and even a “Knowledge Bazaar”.
The CIF website has a very useful section on learning and events with further details of other learning
products developed22.
Frequency of use of knowledge assets:
While the CIF AU has not provided frequency of use statistics for the knowledge assets, some use of
knowledge assets can be assessed in other ways. Attendance at learning events provides one
indicator. At the 2012 Partnership Forum, a new, dedicated CSO Forum attracted over 100
participants, including NGOs, indigenous peoples groups, private sector entities, recipient countries,
and MDBs; the Private Sector Forum attracted approximately 220 participants from the public and
private sectors, including investors, bankers, project developers, policy makers, civil society, and
recipient and contributor countries.
Level of client satisfaction with knowledge assets:
The recent independent evaluation of the CIFs has looked at exit survey results for a number of pilot
country meetings, and concludes that the results have been positive. After FIP meetings in 2012, 89
percent and 90 percent of respondents rated the April and October meetings, respectively, as “Good”
or “Excellent.” After PPCR meetings in 2012, 91 percent and 92 percent of respondents rated the April
and October meetings, respectively, as “Good” or “Excellent.” After SREP meetings in 2012, 87
percent and 100 percent of respondents rated the March and October meetings, respectively, as
“Good” or “Excellent.”
Conclusion:
Without a target for the number of knowledge products produced, their use and usefulness, it is very
difficult to quantify whether this output has been exceeded or not. However, the number, breadth and
depth of knowledge products is increasing, and satisfaction amongst recipient countries is high. A
number of the key recommendations from the last annual report have been acted upon and good
progress made. Most significant has been the progress on the Independent Evaluation, which has just
produced its first interim report.
On Web-learning - the new website has been up and running for a while now and includes
comprehensive information on events and learning, however, in this review it was not possible to
assess the usage of learning products.
We have therefore assessed this output as A.
Recommendation:
DFID should request that the CIF AU report on web statistics and feedback and ensure that information
about use is being acted upon and that this tool is continually being developed to meet the needs of
stakeholders and clients.
We should continue to emphasise the importance of linking key learning with process and aspects the
GCF Board itself will be considering first, so that evaluation findings can be helpful to the GCF design.
Impact Weighting (%): 27
Revised since last Annual Review? N While output 3 is now a complete amalgamation of the
previous outputs 3,4 & 5. These were the previous weightings were 9% for each, equalling the total
22
https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/learning-and-events
14 | P a g e
used here of 27%.
Risk: Low
Revised since last Annual Review? Y with delayed implementation of the Green Climate Fund and
good progress on the Independent Evaluation the lessons from the Independent Evaluation will now be
available for the design of the Green Climate Fund. In other areas, there has continued to be good
progress over the year in the number of learning products developed and improvements in the way
these have been used, risk should now be low, rather than medium.
Output 4: CIFs governed with legitimacy, inclusion and transparency
Output 4 score and performance description:
A - Outputs met expectations.
The CIFs have made good progress across all areas of the reform covered by this output, including
when assessed against the UK’s own reform priorities.
Progress against expected results:
Transparency has been added to the previous output of ‘level of stakeholder satisfaction with CIF
Governance’, which brings this output more in line with UK reform priorities.
At the CIF committee meetings in Washington on 3 November 2011, the joint committee of the CTF and
SCF agreed areas in which the CIFs needed to improve. These built on UK proposals tabled at the June
2011 Committee meetings on measures to improve the CIFs. Those UK proposals have been built into
indicators for this AR:
a) confirmation that MDB staff are effectively supporting country leadership, assessed through
feedback from (i) lesson learning briefs, (ii) government representatives, (iii) feedback from donor
staff in-country.
b) engagement with private sector associations and civil society in the development of all
investment plans and, unless justified otherwise, projects. This engagement should be explicitly set
out in each plan or project, along with clear plans for continuing stakeholder involvement in
monitoring and evaluation;
c) improved transparency, with agreement by December to (i) eliminate closed executive
sessions under the CTF, (ii) make (sub) committee comments on national plans and projects
publicly accessible, (iii) make mission reporting publicly accessible, (iii) make the CIFs compliant
with the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI).
(a) MDB staff effectively supporting country leadership
As reported at the last annual review progress was made at the Trust Fund Committee meetings in May
2012 on country ownership and transparency, for example how to strengthen further country-level
partnerships among the MDBs, and to improve in-country collaboration amongst stakeholders operating
at the country level. The Interim Evaluation report suggests that:
The strength of government leadership may be demonstrated in several ways—including
alignment of CIF investment plans with broader national policies and strategies, the strength of
the country focal point, extent of government involvement in CIF country programming,
15 | P a g e
government co-financing, and the presence of centralized mechanisms to align and coordinate
CIF activities with other climate activities in-country.
While the subsequent field level phase of the evaluation will yield more evidence of country leadership
the Interim Report makes the current initial assessment:

Nearly all CIF investment plans state that they are aligned with national development and
climate strategies. Fifteen of 16 CTF investment plans explicitly mention coordination with
national climate plans or strategies; all of the SPCRs developed by LDCs explicitly mentioned
coordinating with or building upon their NAPA. The actual extent of this alignment, and tension
between ensuring alignment and going beyond a business-as-usual approach will be explored
further in country visits.

Approximately half of CIF focal points are located in central ministries of finance, economics, or
planning, which may suggest a stronger leadership role. Across the CIF, 35 percent of endorsed
projects include expected co-financing from recipient government agencies.

Some PPCR and FIP pilot countries are incorporating country coordination mechanisms as part
of their CIF programming, which may support country ownership and integration.
(b) Engagement with the private sector and civil society in development of investment plans
and projects:
The Interim Report of the CIF evaluation23 has carried out some preliminary analysis of Joint Mission
reports to gauge the extent of stakeholder participation, including private sector and civil society.
However, it found this challenging as not all mission reports include clear rosters of stakeholders
consulted. This is summarised in the table below:
However, based on the information that was available, they were able to establish the following
evidence of consultation:
23
http://www.cifevaluation.org/news.html (See pages 84-86).
16 | P a g e
From this evidence they drew the following initial conclusions of relevance to private sector and civil
society:

Civil society has been engaged in all FIP missions and more than three–quarters of PPCR
missions; about 60 percent of SREP missions and only 13 percent of CTF missions have
explicitly mentioned consultation with civil society.

The private sector has been engaged in more than three-quarters of FIP and SREP missions,
about half of PPCR missions, and around 40 percent of CTF missions. Given the important role
of the private sector in upscaling CTF investments, a more extensive consultation with the
private sector might have been expected for CTF. Implications will be further explored during the
interview and country visit phases of the evaluation.
It should be noted that the CTF missions largely took place earlier than the other funds missions.
Lessons from the consultation (or lack of) in CTF missions was the basis for proposed improvements,
which have been reflected in other funds stakeholder engagement.
(c) Improved transparency
At the November 2011 Joint CTF-SCF committee meeting it was agreed to eliminate closed sessions
under the CTF There are two remaining indicators not yet fully addressed a) making comments on
projects and plans, and visit reports publically available; b) making the CIFs compliant with IATI. The
Interim report of the evaluation has the following comments on these two areas:
On publically available information it concludes the CIFs compares well with comparator funds and
includes the following table:
17 | P a g e
On Compliance with IATI:
The CIF has also recently taken steps to increase public access to information, in accordance
with the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI), at the request of the Joint Trust Fund
Committee. Although the CIF cannot become a signatory of IATI—because it is not a separate
legal entity—the CIF AU and Trustee have recently agreed to begin publishing CIF data in IATIcompliant formats. The CIF AU has indicated that basic project data, including project title,
status, MDB, country, budget, commitments, disbursement and expenditure, incoming funds,
and loan/interest repayment, will be published through IATI by the end of calendar year 2013.
This positive development represents good practice on aid transparency.
Conclusion
The CIFs have made significant progress across all areas of this reform priority. The only area where
this is less present is in the poorer engagement by the CTF with private sector and civil society.
However, the majority of CTF Investment Plans – from which the above evidence is taken – were
completed priority to 2011, and were the reason for the UK setting out this reform priority. The response
by the MDBs and especially CIF Admin Unit to address this area of reform has been commendable.
There is a certain overlap between this output for the CIFs and two of the MAR component areas being
assessed as part of the MAR Update exercise – namely ‘Partnership Behaviour’ and ‘Transparency and
Accountability’. At the time of drafting the Annual Review the MAR assessment concluded there had
been reasonable progress in these two areas as well.
Therefore we have scored this as an A.
Recommendations:
This current CIF output is about the process of establishing and running the CIFs. It could be argued
that the outputs of UK funding to the CIFs should solely be about results and leave the
institutional/organisational assessment to the MAR updates. However, since the purpose of setting up
the CIFs was to learn lessons for the Green Climate Fund, it makes sense to keep an
organisational/reform output for the CIFs to review annually. It is recommended to update this output to
reflect all UK reform priorities, both those being assessed as part of the MAR process, such as gender,
but also new reform priorities, such as the establishment of a portfolio wide risk management
framework.
Impact Weighting (%): 9%
Revised since last Annual Review? [Y] Transparency has been added to the previous output of ‘level
18 | P a g e
of stakeholder satisfaction with CIF Governance’, which brings this output more in line with UK reform
priorities.
Risk: Low
Revised since last Annual Review? Y As evidence from the Independent evaluation makes clear and
across the areas of reform, the CIFs have made good progress. The risk against the above formulated
output is thus low. However, if the above recommendation is agreed to expand this output across all
reform areas, then it is likely the risk will rise again.
Output 5: FCPF Readiness Fund assists developing countries to reach a capacity level
at which they will be ready to participate in a future system for positive incentives for
REDD+; and Carbon Fund tests and evaluates incentive payments for REDD+ in
approximately five developing countries.
Output 5 score and performance description:
A
Outputs met expectation
Progress against expected results:
The indicators for this output were:
(a) Number and quality of REDD+ readiness preparation plans (RPP) supported;
(b) Knowledge generated and disseminated by the FCPF including country advisory services; and
(c) Number and Quality of REDD+ Emission Reduction Programmes Supported.
FCPF was established in 2008 and has two mechanisms: REDD Readiness Fund and FCPF Carbon
Fund. The Readiness Fund aims to assist developing countries to reach a capacity level at which they
will be ready to participate in a future system for positive incentives to REDD, and is focused around
Readiness Preparation Proposals (RPPs). Total contributions to the Readiness Fund stand at US$259
million (from US$230 last year). Since inception $42.5 million of RPP grants have been signed with
countries and $121.6 million has been allocated to countries for RPP grants.
To date 36 developing countries have signed-up to the readiness programme (up to 4 new countries
are expected to join in 2014). Of these, 32 have submitted RPPs for assessment (from 23 last year),
and 9 have received grants to implement these proposals (from 5 last year). The Facility Management
Team (FMT) expects to sign a further 9 grants in 2013, and to have grants signed for all participating
countries by May 2014, which is the deadline for guaranteeing a preparation grant.
The level of grant approvals has increased this year and will continue to do so as countries’ RPPs are
approved. That all of the RPP grants have been issued within the past two years does not suggest a
sudden improvement in performance, but that countries have progressed steadily along the Readiness
pipeline. There are still some underlying issues with the fund, not least the fairly onerous requirements
attached to the disbursement of relatively small grants (US$3.6m - US$3.8m). Since the last review the
FMT have announced the availability of additional grants of US$5m to countries that have
demonstrated significant progress.
The Carbon Fund is capitalised at US$391m and aims to deliver payments for verified emissions
reductions in 5-7 countries from 2015. The Carbon Fund became operational in 2012, and has made
significant progress in regards its Methodological Framework which went before public consultation in
September 2013.
19 | P a g e
The World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) was published in Q4 2012 and highlighted the
importance of the FCPF in terms of piloting performance-based climate finance. It noted greater
integration of FCPF operations in country, including better alignment of the REDD+ agenda with the
World Bank’s engagement in natural resources management. Financial contributors to the report
acknowledged implementation challenges and emphasised the need to accelerate disbursements.
Progress against indicators:
(a) Number and quality of REDD+ readiness preparation plans supported

32 RPPs in total have been assessed (which should lead to a signed preparation grant within
18 months).

9 RPP grants have been signed.

The FMT expect to sign 9 grants this year, and the remainder by the deadline of May 2014.
(b) Knowledge generated and disseminated by the FCPF including country advisory services
The FCPF is an innovative program that has added significant value at the global level in defining the
modalities of REDD+ and has produced a roadmap for countries to achieve REDD+ readiness. The
FCPF has created a space for inclusive and transparent debate among donors, forested developing
countries, civil society, indigenous peoples’ groups and forest-dependent communities around REDD+.
Even in the absence of an agreed-upon instrument and a system of positive incentives and financing
flows for REDD+, the FCPF has rekindled interest in addressing challenges that have plagued the
forest sector for years. Because of the requirements associated with REDD+, the FCPF has facilitated
a level of consultation and dialogue at the country level that has not traditionally taken place in
sustainable forest management projects.
The value added of the FCPF at the country level has been the guidance provided by the Readiness
Preparation Proposal (RPP) template and the guidelines for stakeholder engagement, including the
Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA).
(c) Number and Quality of REDD+ Emission Reduction Programmes Supported
None as yet. Costa Rica is so far the only country to have signed a Letter of Intent but it is anticipated
that there will be around 11 Emission Reduction Programme Idea Notes (ERPINs) on the table by 2015
a) Conclusion
FCPF has made good progress against the first 2 indicators (number and quality of REDD+ readiness
preparation plans (RPP) supported, and Knowledge generated and disseminated by the FCPF
including country advisory services) but not against the third (number and Quality of REDD+ Emission
Reduction Programmes Supported). On balance this represents overall progress in line with
expectations. The World Bank’s IEG evaluation concluded that, as of the end of 2010, the FCPF had
added value both at the global and national level, for example, in creating a common framework for
REDD readiness and supporting interagency coordination at the national level. It considered that the
Facility had been effective in raising in-country awareness on REDD issues and in promoting SouthSouth knowledge exchange and learning around REDD, and that it had increased political momentum
to fight deforestation and engaged governments in broad consultative processes on REDD readiness.
The evaluation further found that the Facility had been successful in mobilizing resources but that slow
disbursement had hindered its effectiveness. It also found that private sector participation was lacking.
We have therefore scored this as A.
Recommendations:
20 | P a g e
Use World Bank IEG recommendations to inform UK positions in the FCPF governance mechanism.
Use the UK seat on the Participant’s Committee to encourage an acceleration of the programme.
As with the CBFF consider whether the FCPF should be covered in a separate AR in 2014.
Impact Weighting (%): 5%
Revised since last Annual Review? N
Risk: Medium
Revised since last Annual Review? N
Output 6: The Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF) alleviates poverty and addresses climate
change through reducing the rate of deforestation of the forests of the Congo Basin, with
effective participation of Congo Basin countries in climate change initiatives deriving sufficient
benefits for conservation of resources and enhancing livelihoods of populations living in the
forest.
Output 6 score and performance description:
B: Output moderately did not meet expectation
Progress against expected results:
The CBFF was set up to support projects that would slow the rate of deforestation, through
developing the capacity of the people and institutions in the countries of the Congo basin to
manage their forest. This includes helping local communities develop livelihoods that are
consistent with forest conservation and developing transformative approaches to sustainable
forest management. 41 projects have been endorsed by the CBFF Governing Council,
amounting to €84 million. Out of these 41 projects, 37 are on-going, one was dropped by the
grant applicant, and three have not yet been approved by the AfDB Board.
The previous indicators for this output, as identified in the original CBFF framework document
included: To reduce the average rate of deforestation in the Congo Basin region from 0.19 to
0.10% and increase the forestry sector contribution to GDP from 15-20% by 2018 (sunset date
for CBFF). However, no milestones were established in the original logframe and CBFF
reporting to date has largely been done against the fund’s key thematic areas of focus (See
Figure below).
Figure 1: Thematic breakdown of the CBFF portfolio
7%
Forest Management
6%
14%
37%
36%
Livelihoods
Development
Reduced Emissions
from Degradation
Monitory, Reporting
and Verification
Payment for
ecosystems
In the past, overall disbursement of funds to projects and implementation of project activities
21 | P a g e
have been considerably lower than expected - primarily due to difficulty in working with
existing AfDB fiduciary and project management procedures, and the inappropriateness of
these procedures for the smaller CBFF grants. The 2012 annual review scored the CBFF
output as C and it was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). The PIP was an
action plan developed in response to the recommendations of an external operational
effectiveness review undertaken in June 2012. The 2012 annual review also recommended
that a new CBFF logframe should be developed along with a monitoring strategy which would
enable reporting on the cumulative results of individual CBFF projects against a set of
strategic immediate outcomes.
The expected results from the revised logframe are below.
Intermediate Outcome (equivalent to DFID outcome) - ‘Congo Basin Governments and forestdependent communities receive increased benefits from sustainably managed forest
landscapes’
Immediate Outcomes (equivalent to DFID outputs)
1.
2.
3.
4.
The technical capacity of Congo Basin stakeholders for implementation of sustainable
management of multiple forest landscape resources and REDD+ is increased
Improved forest governance in the Congo Basin promotes more equitable benefit
sharing among forest stakeholders, including women and ethnic minorities
Congo Basin Institutions have increased capacity for implementing landscape level
sustainable management of forests and REDD+
CBFF Secretariat effectively supports achievement of desired impact
However, as we have not yet received the 2013 CBFF Annual Report which will report against
the expected results for 2013, we have taken a pragmatic approach to assessing progress in
this annual review. We have used the revised logframe as well as the CBFF 2012 annual
report and 2013 quarterly reports to report on cumulative results of the CBFF portfolio. For
immediate outcomes 1-3, we have tracked progress against the ‘activities’ carried out at
project level – reporting against the relevant indicators and 2013 targets where possible. For
immediate outcome 4, progress has largely been tracked against the PIP.
Annex A provides a summary of results achieved under the each immediate outcome of the
CBFF revised logframe, the following sections provide conclusions and recommendations
based on that assessment:
Conclusions
1. The CBFF has had an extremely slow start. Disbursements rates have been low and there
have been considerable delays to project implementation. However, there has been some
progress to improve CBFF operational performance since the last annual review and
projects are now beginning to show results and generate lessons. This this is the first
annual review where we are able to review results. We have assessed progress based on
our expectations and recommendations as outlined at the last annual review.
2. The CBFF Secretariat has made good progress on the revision of the CBFF logframe and
a number of key new staff have also been recruited and have a positive contribution to
reporting and strategic oversight of the CBFF. The portfolio review has made a number of
good recommendations for the Bank and GC to ‘clean up portfolio’ which would further
improve operations and value for money if adopted. A beneficiary survey carried out as
22 | P a g e
part of this annual review suggests that CBFF grantees have perceived an improvement to
operations over the last 12 months, but there is still considerable room for improvement.
3. Results in this annual review are cumulative results over the last 4 years. Given the
numerous delays faced at an individual project level, results are lower than could have
been expected. However, this annual review and the revised logframe provide a solid
basis for moving forward.
4. Many challenges to project implementation remain, including political challenges, civil
unrest and operational delays and in its current form we are still not confident that the
CBFF offers good value for money and proven efficiency in delivery. Whilst the portfolio
review outlines that admin costs are levelling off, they are still high and we must
acknowledge that AfDB procedures remain ill-adapted for the smaller CBFF grantees.
Supporting beneficiaries to comply with cumbersome procedures has been to the detriment
of results on the ground.
5. DFID’s priority remains focussed on the existing portfolio. We are pleased to note from the
portfolio review that (i) the Bank has made a corporate decision to exceptionally apply
disbursement based on reporting to 8 projects from the first call, and (ii) that the revised
results framework is well adapted to the existing portfolio. However, it is too early to
understand if measures taken over the last 12 months have led to a fundamental change in
CBFF operations and an overall improvement to the management of the existing portfolio.
6. The UK will not endorse a third call for proposals until we are confident that further
improvements are made. Since the overall score for the CBFF is a B, it will continue to
remain on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). We will remain committed to current
portfolio and will work with AfDB to ensure continued improvements are implemented.
We have therefore scored this part of the project as a B.
Recommendations:
For the CBFF:
1. The CBFF portfolio should be consolidated – including the cancellation of poorly
performing projects within the portfolio as outlined in the portfolio review.
2. Cumulative reporting for the CBFF portfolio as a whole needs continued improvement. The
2013 CBFF annual report should report on CBFF results against the new logframe and
DFID will expect sex-disaggregation of data.
3. A new model for a Fund Management Agent with full delegated authority should be
considered for small grants, or the CBFF should only focus on larger grants.
4. CBFF Secretariat needs to be restructured to ensure technical capacity is based in the
region.
5. The Governance arrangements of the fund need to be reviewed to ensure that strategic
oversight and African ownership of the CBFF is strengthened. A mechanisms for
beneficiary feedback is also needed to strengthen accountability and provide a platform for
lesson learning across projects.
6. AfDB and the CBFF should position themselves through strategic partnerships in order
to better leverage support for necessary policy shifts and land tenure reform across the
Basin ensure greater dissemination and uptake of successful CBFF approaches.
7. An evaluation should be undertaken to capture successes from the portfolio and to
23 | P a g e
guide the strategic focus and future direction of the fund.
For DFID:
1. The CBFF should be reviewed separately from the other CIF outputs which would allow the
annual review to be timed to coincide with the CBFF annual reports provided by the CBFF
secretariat.
2. The CBFF output statement should be updated to reflect the Intermediate outcome in the
revised logframe ‘Congo Basin Governments and forest-dependent communities receive
increased benefits from sustainably managed forest landscapes’
3. The next CBFF annual review should be carried out by an external party and should
include a comparison of expected CBFF results with those under other DFID forestry
programmes.
4. Continued monitoring of CBFF performance is needed and a formal Donor mission to
follow up on agreed PIP actions with AfDB should take place within 6 months of this
review.
Impact Weighting (%): 9%
Revised since last Annual Review? N
Risk: High
Revised since last Annual Review? N
Section B: Results and Value for Money.
1. Progress and results
1.1 Has the logframe been updated since last review? Y
At the last review it was recommended that there should be clearly separate logical
frameworks for the CIFs, CBFF and FCPF. Progress on this has been made in the last year.
A. CIFs:
A revised CIFs logframe has been produced in time for this Annual Review, in consultation
with DECC. This has updated the previous outputs and indicators as set out above where
appropriate so they provide a better measure of progress in establishing and implementing
the CIFs. However, the logframe is not yet in the format to measure actual results
produced by the CIFs, and we anticipate that the logframe will continue to evolve over
time. There are a number of reasons for this:

Over the last year revised results frameworks have been approved for PPCR and CTF
at the November 2012 TFC meetings. These have reduced the previous
unmanageable number of indicators to a small set of core indicators – which have
reasonable alignment with the UK International Climate Fund’s Key Performance
Indicators.

The CIF AU has also produced toolkits and detailed guidance sheets for PPCR and
24 | P a g e
CTF on monitoring and reporting of resources, including providing technical workshops
at TFC, Partnership Forum and country pilot meetings.

For PPCR, CTF and SREP baselines and expected results (and in the case of CTF
actual results) are being collected for reporting in the 2013 Annual Report due in
December 2013. This will be the first time that contributing countries will have properly
aggregated expected results and milestones.

From January 2014 it will then be possible to construct a UK logframe based on
aggregated expected results across 3 of the 4 CIF windows/programmes.

For FIP there will be further delays due to the complexity of agreeing forestry indicators
across the international system – with negotiations currently taking place under the
UNFCCC. However, in November 2013 FIP sub-committee meeting a set of core
indicators, which will enable the aggregation of results across the FIP programme are
due to be agreed by the FIP sub-committee, which will enable some aggregation of
results across the FIP programme.
For the CIFs there are results frameworks for each of the funding windows, but not one
overarching M&E strategy or results framework. This means translating the 4 results
frameworks into one UK logframe highlights a number of discrepancies of level of objective i.e.
whether impact, outcome or indicator.
Where possible, CIF core indicators will be included in the UK CIF logframe as they are
developed.
B. CBFF
A new CBFF logframe has been developed in 2013 and will be approved by the AfDB board
in September 2013.
C. FCPF:
The FCPF Programme Level Monitoring and Evaluation Framework was developed by the
FMT with assistance from Baastel and Eco Consult. The draft M&E Framework was presented
to the Participants Committee (PC) at its fourteenth meeting in Washington, March 2013 for its
consideration and adoption on a no-objection basis.
1.2 Overall Output Score and Description:
A – Outputs met expectations.
1.3 Summary of overall progress
Given the breadth of the funding and programmes covered by this annual review, i.e. 3 distinct
Trust Funds, 3 governing instruments and 6 different funding windows, there has naturally
been good progress in some areas, adequate progress in others and poor progress in other
areas.
The overall output score to a certain extent reflects this range of progress, however, as this
has been heavily weighted towards the CIFs, given 95% of funding is channelled through the
CIFs, the overall output score largely reflects the progress made with the CIFs.
A. CIFs: With the changes to the CIF outputs and indicators a more realistic picture has
25 | P a g e
developed in this annual review of progress at the output level. This review has highlighted
the following:

The speed of disbursement of CIF funds and prior approval of projects is still lagging
behind the projections from the CIF AU and the MDBs. Reasons have been provided
why this is the case. However, it does suggest unrealistic forecasting by the MDBs and
CIF AU. This needs addressing in the coming year and lessons learned.

With the significant progress made with the CIF Results Frameworks over the last 12
months, the CIFs are nearly in the position to provide a rigorous indication of the
expected results from CIF funding – at least for 3 of the programmes (CTF, SREP and
PPCR). However, this clarity on results will also highlight issues of methodology to be
resolved. The level of aggregation of expected results that is currently possible,
however, does point towards the CIFs achieving some significant results.

The CIFs have continued to make good progress in providing lessons and learning
products. As more projects are actually implemented there should continue to be an
increase in the evidence that the CIFs provide on climate financing.

The CIF AU has continued to prioritise reforms to how the CIFs operate, with some
significant improvements over the last year including moving towards compliance on
transparency/IATI, strengthening country collaboration and on other reform areas such
as gender, where an external review has been published and recommendations acted
upon.
This assessment is consistent with the assessment made in the current MAR update
process, which (at the time of drafting) has also judged that the CIFs are making
reasonable progress against reform areas and continue to represent good value for
money.
B. CBFF: Overall, there has been some good progress being made under certain CBFF
projects and projects are beginning to show results and generate lessons. However,
political instability in CAR and eastern DRC has affected the implementation of number of
projects (4 projects currently suspended). Policy reforms and lack of government support
has also affected the implementation of projects (9 projects currently delayed due to red
tape - including bureaucratic procedures and the non-materialising of foreseen legislature).
Many projects are still experiencing operational delays to disbursements and procurement
to the detriment of results. A corporate decision taken by AfDB should resolve the final
outstanding issues from the first call for proposals. Responses of the beneficiary survey
would suggest that while there is considerable room for operational improvements, the
overall situation has improved over the last 12 months.
C. FCPF: FCPF-R has been criticised for not providing sufficient funding to implement
participant countries’ RPPs, which is necessary to achieve ‘Readiness’, the end goal of the
fund’s process. However, the FCPF-R preparation grants, and clear roadmap towards
readiness, have allowed participating countries to leverage funds from additional bilateral
and multilateral sources. FCPF-C is expected to pilot ERPINs from 2015. Currently just
one country (Costa Rica) has entered the FCPF-C pipeline and signed a Letter of Intent.
26 | P a g e
1.4 Key challenges
A. CIFs
Despite the progress made by the CIFs over the last year there are some top level priorities
for the UK to engage on over the next year to continue to strengthen the CIFs and ensure the
delivery of good value-for-money of the UK’s investment in the CIFs. In summary:

Providing rigorous expected results For CTF, SREP and PPCR the results frameworks
have been completed, however, the next step for these programmes is to ensure that the
methodologies used can stand up to scrutiny and provide a realistic assessments of what
the CIFs will deliver.

Finalisation of common indicators for the FIP Results Framework For the FIP the priority
will be to reach agreement at the sub-committee level on common indicators that will allow
aggregation of results across the pilot countries.

Addressing slow disbursement through over-programming Given the delays that are now
becoming evident in the approval of projects and subsequent disbursement of funding, the
UK will need to work with others in the TFCs, the MDBs and CIF Admin Unit to move to
greater over-programming to speed up the pipeline, at the same time as being realistic
about the timeframes for approval and disbursement of funds.
B. CBFF
Key challenges for the CBFF are twofold: operational and strategic
Operational challenges




AfDB procedures remain ill adapted to small grants and NGO beneficiaries and this
continues to have consequences on results and value for money. The upcoming close of
the Fund Management Agent (FMA) contract provides an opportunity to explore alternative
models for management of the smaller grants.
Managing risk across the CBFF portfolio remains a challenge given the nature of projects
and the context of the region.
The bulk of CBFF secretariat staff remains in Tunis and are unable to provide the
necessary technical support to CBFF beneficiaries. Restructuring of the CBFF secretariat
is also a priority for 2013/14.
The CBFF Governing Council (GC) remains dominated by donor and AfDB
representatives, with limited members from the region present at the meetings. The GC
will need to be strengthened in 2013/14 to ensure greater African buy in to the CBFF and
strengthened technical capacity.
Strategic Challenges


A number of CBFF are showing results. However, given their size, a remaining challenge
is how to replicate/scale up successful projects to ensure they are able to have strategic
impact. Learning across projects in the CBFF needs to be strengthened to ensure that
successful approaches feed into policy and other initiatives.
Sustainability is also a challenge given the 3 year maximum to CBFF projects. Achieving
the necessary behavioural and policy shifts require longer term approaches to ensure
results are sustainable.
27 | P a g e


Land tenure is one of the main ‘technical’ challenges to the successful implantation of
community forestry and REDD+ projects, yet these are of fundamental importance in the
Congo Basin.
Disappointment in the Region around REDD+ expectations and level of donor financing is
leading to falling political will for REDD+ pilots and will be a growing challenge to the
implementation of CBFF REDD+ pilot projects.
C. FCPF
Over the next year the UK will need to engage FCPF on the following issues:
 Clarifying the FCPF mission in relation to the changes that are taking place in the carbon
market and with respect to the evolving nature of the Carbon Fund.
 Clarifying how and under what conditions the Facility will support non-market, versus
market-based approaches to REDD+ and how benefits will be aligned.
 Clarifying the role of FCPF participation in the two funds i.e. how will countries that are not
eligible for the Carbon Fund view their role in the Readiness Fund after the Carbon Fund
comes fully on-stream. Clarifying how the FCPF should balance engagement between
longstanding participants and new entrants?
1.5 Annual Outcome Assessment
The previous annual reviews have used the outcome statement from the original ETF Project
Memorandum of Transform energy supply and demand, and forest use, and increase resilience to
climate change in developing countries. Reviews also highlighted that milestones and baselines from
the CIF results frameworks are still under development.
In the last 12 months there has been good progress made against the CIF results frameworks with
baselines and expected results for 3 of the CIF windows available by December 2013. It will then
become far clearer what the actual outcomes e.g. in terms of GHG emissions reductions will be
measured by the CIF M&E systems. Given the long scale nature of some of the CIF projects –
especially infrastructure development – actual results and therefore progress towards the outcome will
not be measured for a number of years yet.
For CBFF and FCPF progress has also been made at fund level to develop and approve results
frameworks/logframes. These will provide the basis for making assessments against higher level
outcomes in each case. However, as highlighted in the recommendation under CBFF and FCPF
outputs, this annual review recommends these funds should be covered by separate Annual Reviews,
which can more clearly assess progress at the outcome level in the future.
2. Costs and timescale
2.1 Is the project on-track against financial forecasts: N (see 2.2 below for action taken)
The profile for deposit of UK promissory notes (but not the encashments of these) remains as planned.
Up to March 31 2013 DFID has deposited seven promissory notes out of a total of eight.
These promissory notes (PNs) are encashed annually under terms and a schedule agreed between
DFID and the Trustee. Details of the PN deposits and encashments are described in the tables below.
For FCPF and CBFF the PNs have been fully encashed.
28 | P a g e
2.2 Does the review of the cash balance position raise any concerns around payment in
advance of need: Y
For the CIFs the liquidity needs were examined over the winter of 2012/13 as part of an assessment of
need. Following information provided by the trustee it was decided and agreed by the trustee that the
liquidity levels of the SCF and CTF trust funds were sufficiently high to enable the 2013 DFID and
DECC encashments to be postponed for a year. This has prevented funds being paid in advance of
need and saved an estimated £3.5m in debt interest to HMG over the 12 month period.
It should be clarified that this relates to the encashment of promissory notes to enable disbursement of
funds to projects ready for implementation and does not preclude new commitments necessarily being
made by the UK or others (if considered desirable and approved), which could be made to enable new
programming and design to start.
2.3 Have additional payments linked to good performance been triggered
N/A
3. Evidence and Evaluation
3.1 Assess any changes in evidence and implications for the project
A. CIFs
Following the 2011 MAR, a MAR Update is currently underway. This will be finalised in
December 2013.
The Multilateral Aid Review (MAR) carried out in 2011 had found that the CIFs provided good value for
money, in providing a critical gap in delivering the UK Government’s climate change outcomes and
delivering finance at scale, and that they are also important in delivering the Millennium Development
Goals and wealth creation. While recognising that the CIFs were a new instrument, the MAR did
identify a number of areas where improvements could be made, including:





clearer development impact;
improved country ownership and greater transparency;
greater innovation and effective working with the private sector;
being able to demonstrate results; and
ensuring effective communication of lessons learnt.
At the time of this Annual Review the initial evidence in the MAR update suggests that overall progress
has been reasonable. Since the original MAR assessment in 2011, the CIFs have continued on a
positive reform trajectory and through the Trust Fund Committees (TFC) and CIF Admin Unit are
strongly committed to addressing the MAR reforms. A number of positive steps have been taken by
the Trust Fund Committee (with significant engagement by the UK) and Admin Unit, which is in line
with expectations. Specific improvements since the MAR include:



An independent gender review of the CIFs was conducted and recommendations are being
taken forward including the recruitment of a senior gender specialist within the CIF
Administrative Unit.
MDBs are ensuring that gender experts are included in all missions and now ensuring at least
one indicator disaggregated by gender included in each project where feasible.
Revised results frameworks, toolkits and guidance for monitoring and reporting have been
29 | P a g e






developed.
An Independent Evaluation is now fully underway.
CIFs have used performance evidence to improve their slow disbursement rates.
Actions have been taken to improve MDB collaboration at country level, strengthen country
ownership and improving engagement with stakeholders including the private sector and civil
society.
Since 2011 there is more evidence on working with stakeholders as the CIFs moved from the
design to implementation phase.
Reasonable progress has been made in enhancing the transparency of the CIFs, including
removing closed executive sessions, improvements made to the clarity and content of annual
reports, and signing up to the International Aid Transparency Initiative.
For the majority of country offices providing feedback, the CIF website is a useful and
accessible tool.
B. CBFF
Evidence to support the importance of Congo Basin forests and the emerging threats to deforestation
continues to grow. There is also a growing body of evidence to highlight the role the Congo Basin
forests play in generating rainfall, both regionally and in the continent as a whole. For example, tropical
forests like the Congo Basin evaporate up to 1-2m of water per year. Research by Makarieva et al
shows regional forests acts like a pump, moving oceanic moisture towards the continent to eventually
become rainfall in that region. Nogherotto et al explored the impacts of deforestation in the Congo
Basin on regional rainfall. They found that “deforestation in the Congo Basin would lead to
modifications in rain behaviour in the Sahel and over southern equatorial Africa.” Without the Congo
forests, regional rainfall would be severely disrupted. Consequently, there is a strong case to continue
work to ensure the sustainability of the Congo Basin Forest.
An external evaluation of trust fund management at AfDB was carried out in 2013
(http://operationsevaluation.afdb.org/en/evaluations-publications/evaluation/trust-fund-management-atthe-african-development-bank-328/). The evaluation highlights that AfDB trust funds represent less
that 1% of ADB/ADF lending levels and is well below the number of trust funds of the other
MDBs. Some reforms made in 2006 have improved performance of bilateral funds but thematic funds,
such as the CBFF, have raised a different set of challenges and require further reform and rethinking
by AfDB management. The CBFF has faced challenges, largely because of the execution through
non-traditional partners, NGOs. In addition the evaluation highlights that looking back, it would seem
that a trust fund dealing with a challenging sector such as forestry in a challenging geographic area
and through non-traditional partners, would indicate considerable risk flags, though the expectations at
fund start-up do not seem to fully reflect these.
The evaluation makes a number of recommendations to improve trust fund management by AfDB. For
example the evaluation recommends that the on-going review of CSO partnership experience should
incorporate a review of trust fund experience with NGOs. It should result into the preparation of specific
guidelines for task managers in assessing NGO capability and in alternative fiduciary and
disbursement procedures that should be discussed with regional and international NGOs. The review
and guidelines provide an important opportunity for the Bank to engage with NGOs and raise the level
of mutual trust and support. The evaluation notes that AfDB management have agreed with the need
review the guidelines for engagement with CSOs and, in consultation with relevant departments, shall
develop specific guidelines for CSO participation including Trust Funds by Q2 2014. This will be
incorporated into the Trust Fund Policy Review in 2015.
C. FCPF
The Global Program Review (GPR) of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) was
commissioned in July 2010, by the FCPF Participants Committee in line with its charter, which
stipulates that the program shall be subject to a periodic evaluation of its effectiveness. Carrying out
such an evaluation every three to five years is also a World Bank requirement for programs receiving
30 | P a g e
more than $5 million in trust funds. The 2012 Global Program Review (GPR) reviews the independence
and the quality of the evaluation, provides a second opinion on the effectiveness of the FCPF based on
the evaluation, assesses the Bank’s performance as a partner in the program, and draws lessons for
the future operation of the FCPF and the Bank’s engagement in global and regional partnership
programs (GRPPs) more generally.
3.2 Where an evaluation is planned what progress has been made?
A. CTF and SCF governance frameworks call for an independent evaluation to be conducted by the
independent evaluation units (EvDs) of the MDBs in order both to assess the development and
organisational effectiveness of the CIFs to date and document experiences and lessons for the benefit
of the Green Climate Fund (GCF). An Evaluation Oversight Committee (EOC) representing the
independent evaluation departments of the MDBs supervises this evaluation, which is being carried out
by independent consultants ICF International. Separately, an International Reference Group (IRG)
reviews drafts and provides comments. The Independent Evaluation is currently behind schedule, in
part due to delays in finalising the membership of the IRG and country selection. However, the UK
pushed strongly to have the IRG established to demonstrate the independence of the evaluation to a
wide stakeholder group. This supports the assertion that the CIFs are serious about using high quality,
transparent and independent evidence to improve performance. An Interim Report was released in
August 2013. The following provides a brief overview of the headline messages in the Interim Report.






Transformation: It isn’t clear how CTF projects link to lead to transformative impact; many CTF
investment plans are vague or silent on mechanisms by which replication or scalability will be
achieved; in some countries there is clear evidence that PPCR has played a role in setting
stage for national discussions in others there is a struggle of SPCRs being country-led;
significant variation in how transformational change perceived [FIP]; variable strategic fit with
transformational change criteria [SREP];
Designing for change: projects approved by the CIF: CTF projects suggest substantial GHG
emissions reductions; review of projects shows varying levels of consistency with CTF
investment criteria e.g. in methods of calculating emissions reductions, calculating costeffectiveness, calculating transformation; half CTF projects identify poverty related impact.
National planning, participation and ownership: Good alignment of CIFs with national plans;
documents suggest broad stakeholder engagement in developing investment plans, joint
missions etc.
Governance and management: Suspending the SCF meetings seen as good; it is not clear
what role MDBs play in developing policy/strategy documents; some governance functions
missing – risk management (now addressing), conflict management and quality review; good
progress on disclosure and transparency.
Resource and risk management: Investment Plans largely developed without delays; low
number of projects reaching disbursement stage noted; delays linked to country or project
focus; admin costs appropriate when benchmarked against other similar funds (GEF).
Learning (which includes M&E): Inclusion of information sharing & lesson learning varies
significantly across Investment Plans (PPCR best performing); given long-term nature of results
efforts need to be taken to provide lesson for the Green Climate Fund etc; delays in
establishing M&E systems noted with no single overview M&E system; comments on variability
of results framework coverage across Investment Plans and projects.
In addition to the Independent Evaluation of the whole CIF portfolio, the UK pushed the Trust Fund
Committees to look at the use of evaluations below a whole organisation level i.e. projects, investment
plans. In response a paper on the use of evaluative approaches in CIF activities was prepared for the
May 2013 Joint CTF-SCF Trust Fund Committee meeting. It examines existing MDB monitoring and
evaluation systems and their coverage of CIF activities in (i) monitoring and reporting in MDB project
cycles, (ii) MDBs evaluation policies and practices, and (iii) evaluative approaches in CIF project
implementation. The paper demonstrates that the MDBs have thorough monitoring, reporting and
evaluation approaches consistent with a Results Based Management/Managing for Development
31 | P a g e
Results approach. For example, the independent IEG conducts evaluations of 25% of projects closed
each year. However, given the innovative and pilot nature of the whole of the CIF portfolio, we would
expect a higher proportion of projects to be evaluated across the CIFs and we put this forward in
Committee. The discussions during the Committee meeting led to a decision to get more evaluations
built into CIF project design (such as ‘Impact’ or ‘Quasi-experimental’) rather than rely on MDB ex-post
evaluations.
The next step will be a paper for the Joint CTF/SCF Committee as described in the co-chairs summary:
The joint meeting invites the independent evaluation department of each MDB to consider how
it can include CIF-funded projects within its regular evaluation program and to report back to the
joint meeting of the CTF and SCF Trust Fund Committees in November 2013 to provide an
overview of how much of the CIF portfolio could potentially be evaluated, when and with what
type of evaluation.
The joint meeting requests the CIF Administrative Unit to work with the MDBs to prepare,
building on the MDBs’ existing procedures for evaluative approaches, for review in November
2013 a proposal, including financial implications, for modalities and incentives, that could be put
in place with the goal of increasing the number of initiatives that include a broad range of
evaluation approaches as part of their design, without creating additional obligations for pilot
countries. Such approaches could include, but not be restricted to, impact evaluations, quasiexperimental or real time evaluations aimed at generating evaluative information during the
course of project implementation24.
B. CBFF
A recommendation of this review is that an evaluation should be undertaken to capture learning
from the portfolio and to guide the strategic focus and future direction of the fund. DFID will work
with other CBFF donors and AfDB to develop an evaluation plan for the CBFF in 2014.
C. FCPF
The Global Program Review published on 27 August 2012 made 23 recommendations, all of which
were accepted by the Partnership Committee with instructions that they be acted upon within the
following 12 months. The PC’s Evaluation Working Group concluded that the FMT should prepare a
management response for only those recommendations that it deemed were related to FMT functions.
As such, the Management Action Record only includes a response to seven of the 23
recommendations accepted by the PC.
The Management Response presented at PC9 in Oslo welcomed, and generally agreed
with, the recommendations of the external evaluation, and the FMT has since made
considerable progress in implementing these recommendations.
Recommendation
The final report of the Independent evaluation of the CIFs (likely due at the start of 2014) should be
closely scrutinised and used by the UK in the review of its investment in the CIFs. The response from
the CIF AU on a paper on evaluative approaches across the CIF portfolio should be closely watched to
ensure this is taken forward over the next 6 months, which will be critical to getting evaluations
integrated into new projects.
24
See:
https://climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/Summary_of_Co_Chairs_Joint_CTF_S
CF_TFC_April2013%20final.pdf
32 | P a g e
4. Risk
4.1 Output Risk Rating: Medium
4.2 Assessment of the risk level
A. CIFs
The overall risk level for the CIFs remains medium.
Generally measures to monitor and review CIF risks have been strengthened and improved over the
last 12 months.
Internally the CIF cross Whitehall team review the project risk register at the regular monthly meetings
with formal review quarterly at the senior level meetings, with the last review taking place on 2
September. The project risk register has seen a slight reduction of risks levels across the portfolio, with
good progress on the Independent Evaluation; M&E generally – especially with the conclusion of
agreed results frameworks for SREP, CTF and PPCR; most significant has been good progress on the
CIF Enterprise Risk Management Framework that the Trust Fund Committees can review, this was
previously a major concern to the UK, and was raised as part of the Internal Audit report on the UK
management of the CIFs; having this in place is a positive step.
On the ERM the Trust Fund Committee is at present:

Seeking agreement on the revised Tier 1 risks and associated risk mitigation measures to be
incorporated in the Enterprise Risk Management framework for the CTF and SCF.

Requesting that the CIF Admin Unit, the Trustee and the MDBs work to undertake the next
steps identified in the framework to ensure the continued implementation of the ERM;

And to approve the duties and responsibilities of a senior risk management officer and request
the CIF Administrative Unit to recruit a senior risk management officer to be responsible for the
duties requested in the ERM proposal.
Progress on top 5 significant programme risks identified in the project Risk Register and actions
suggested to improve risk over the last 12 months have been:
Top 5 programme risks
Actions to reduce risk:
Progress
Lessons from the CIFs are not captured and shared (e.g. with GCF)
Share more by strengthening communication Increasing focus on lesson learning, with
between CIF and GCF leads (in DFID DECC).
innovative approaches using new media, expo
formats and greater detail in reports; progress
Ensure ground level feedback reaches the CIF needed on integrating in-depth evaluations into
board and vice versa.
CIF projects and programmes, earlier reliance
on panel/town-hall formats is changing.
Capacity building around M&E & lesson capture
at national levels.
Push for sequencing of Independent Evaluation to
ensure timely outputs
33 | P a g e
Press for at least 10% of CIF projects to receive
project level evaluations
CIFs cannot demonstrate (credible) results.
Press for aggregation of portfolio level expected Revised results frameworks endorsed for
results by CIF Admin Unit.
PPCR and CTF, progress on SREP
methodology (RF already agreed) and
Quality assurance of Investment Plan and Project agreement to keep FIP results framework
results forecasts.
Some progress with aggregate expected
Ensure methodological rigor & consistency in results on SREP and CTF but no progress on
calculation of expected results.
FIP or PPCR
Work with CIF Admin Unit to collate expected Some progress on expected results is now
results across each programme / fund
being seen, some very early project results
(e.g. Mexico solar power project) confirming
that actual results currently in-line with
expected results.
Private Sector do not engage sufficiently with the CIFs
"Challenge fund" set up for FIP, PPCR and SREP Dedicated competitive reserves in place under
which will incentivise private sector involvement.
SCF that will focus largely on private sector.
Set targets and actively monitor for Private Sector Local currency lending proposition agreed in
investment.
principle and different MDB funding options
currently being agreed by Trust Fund
Consider new mechanisms under CTF to Committee
incentivise greater levels of private sector
involvement.
Private sector guarantee facility proposal
included in new approaches under the CIFs
New private sector approaches set out in the CIFs
and the emerging climate finance architecture Development of a new Dedicated Private
paper discussed in the Nov 2012 meetings
Sector Programme (DPSP) for discussion in
Oct/Nov 2013.
Funding gap before GCF starts
Ensure donors are joined up on CIFs and GCF
Business case approved for new contribution of
up to £75m to the CTF in 2012/13
Additional contributions to the CIFs in 2012/13
from other donors but no new “big”
contributions since Canada's $200m CTF
contribution.
Prepare concept proposal for new large Business case approved for £75m contribution
contribution in 2013/14 depending on progress to CTF + £15m contribution to PPCR in
under the GCF
November 2012
2013/14 Business case concept note approve
with work on-going to develop these in DFID
and DECC
Slow implementation of Investment plans & projects.
Explore further Investment plan support, to Speed of disbursement addressed with release
address country readiness barriers as part of of $130m from the revised Thailand Investment
possible new contribution in 2013/14.
Plan for projects ready to go and discussions
at May CIF meetings on stronger measures to
Introduction of a more competitive process / actively manage CTF pipeline.
mechanism to encourage rapid and robust
34 | P a g e
implementation.
MDB committee trialling new approach to
allocating available resources (Thai released
Closer monitoring of project progress bu the AU, funds + new UK funds) to those projects which
reported to the Sub-Committees for discussion are ready to come forward in the CTF pipeline.
and possible actions.
Project approval continues to be seen at a
pace slower than original projections, although
CTF is moving ahead, just not at the expected
pace, with agreement for fund from phase 1
able to be moved into faster moving phase 2
programmes.
As a result of the positive progress on risk and risk management, and as well as changes to project
outputs in this review, changes have been made to the risk level for individual outputs in this report
compared with the 2012 annual review.
B. CBFF:
A Risk register for the CBFF was developed as part of this Annual Review and it is considered to be
high risk. Operational risks are high and external risks including civil unrest or outbursts of violence are
also an ever-present danger to successful project implementation. While such risk is low in some
countries and moderate to high in others, when it does materialises, it has devastating effects on
projects and local populations. This type of risk is difficult to mitigate and may only sub-optimally be
dealt with by avoiding countries at risk; this would, however, constitute a significant set-back to
achieving the objectives of the CBFF as many Congo Basin countries are at risk at local or even
national levels.
C. FCPF
Delivery risk: The feasibility of FCPF countries’ future delivery of emission reductions from REDD is
highly dependent both on international political agreements to create supply and demand at the global
level and, at the country and local levels, on the adoption of policy, fiscal, and regulatory reforms to
facilitate the implementation of REDD. The FCPF Carbon Fund proposes to manage delivery risk by
buying only a portion of potential reductions from REDD pilot operations. Mitigating actions: While the
Readiness Fund assists 36 countries to prepare to sell emission reductions, the Carbon Fund will
select only those countries where the delivery risk is minimal for the pilot phase.
Risk of Inequitable Benefit Sharing: The post-2013 carbon market is highly speculative. Because of the
uncertainties in the regulatory regime for the carbon market in general, and specifically with regard to
REDD, the price uncertainty for REDD carbon assets is particularly high, and there is a danger of
reputational risk should long-term purchase contracts not prove durable because they do not represent
equitable benefit sharing between buyers and sellers. Mitigating actions: The FCPF proposes to
manage this risk by including a mechanism for rewarding the buyer for taking early risk (early
investment) while leaving some potential for the seller to benefit as the market firms up.
In addition, there is a financial/fiduciary risk that the FCPF has underestimated the funding required for
it to carry out its objectives. At the time of approval, it was expected that the US$3.6 million grants
provided by the FCPF would be broadly sufficient for countries to achieve REDD readiness but
countries have so far budgeted an average of approximately US$13 million for RPP implementation.
Countries have therefore had to turn to other funding sources to complement the funding received from
the FCPF. Not all countries have been able to secure full funding for their RPP implementation.
Mitigating actions: The FCPF has recognised this problem and decided to allocate up to an additional
US$5 million to countries that can show substantial progress at mid-term, but there is still a possibility
that funds may not be sufficient for all countries. Furthermore, funding for Phase 2, which is more
capital intensive than Phase 1, is uncertain.
35 | P a g e
Finally, there is reputational risk involved for the Bank if large-scale future payments for REDD (Phase
3) are not of a sufficient magnitude to compensate countries for preserving their forests. Whereas the
FCPF has raised expectations in countries about future rewards accruing from REDD readiness work,
a future REDD financing mechanism remains elusive. Although the FCPF is not the only initiative to
have contributed to raising these expectations, the Bank is nonetheless likely to be held responsible if
they go largely unmet. Furthermore, as the MDP arrangement becomes operational, there is a risk that
the Bank — as Trustee of the FCPF’s two funds — will be held responsible for work carried out by DPs
other than the Bank.
4.3 Risk of funds not being used as intended
A. CIFs
The risk is low. The World Bank serves as the Trustee for the CIFs and follows World Bank policies
and procedures for the funds it administers. The Bank (as highlighted in the MAR) has strong internal
controls, fiduciary management and audit compliance.
The encashment schedule was set up to ensure funds were not being provided in advance of need.
This was reviewed with the Trustee in 2013 and encashment postponed for one year, on the basis of
the Trust Fund having funds in place well above the minimum liquidity needs.
B. CBFF:
AfDB is the trustee for the CBFF and has strong internal controls, fiduciary management and audit
compliance. However, ARD anti-corruption and counter fraud strategy has assessed the CBFF
programme as high-risk: due to its high budget, high risk nature of the forestry sector, the high risk of
the Congo Basin region and the complex delivery structure of the CBFF.
This risk is mitigated by the AfDB’s fraud and anti-corruption policy and the ‘special account’ method of
disbursement applied to many of the CBFF, giving AfDB full access to CBFF accounts. In addition,
AfDB makes direct payments to suppliers for large procurements to minimise risk and each project
undergoes regular independent audits. The FMA and Secretariat carry out annual supervision
missions.
C. FCPF
As with the CIFs, the risk is low. The World Bank serves as the Trustee for the FCPF and follows World
Bank policies and procedures. The Bank has strong internal controls, fiduciary management and audit
compliance.
Recommendation
A: CIFs
i)
The CIF team should continue to engage with the ERM process as this develops and is
embedded into the CIFs.
ii) It is recommended that the CIF cross Whitehall team focus attention over the next year on
seeking further improvements over the next year on the two major project risks:


speed of project approvals and disbursement - with continued focus on measures to speed
up the pipeline of projects including overprogramming, and
the CIFs demonstrating credible results – with further development of, and work on, the
results frameworks required.
B: CBFF :
36 | P a g e
i)
DFID should work with AfDB to ensure that further operational improvements are implemented
to reduce operational and reputational risk (including demonstrating results and value for
money)
ii) DFID should encourage the CBFF secretariat to be more proactive about their management of
high risk projects
iii) AfDB have systems in place to reduce fiduciary risk. However, DFID should carry out at least
one spot check of a high risk CBFF project in the next 12 months.
C: FCPF:
i)
The UK should continue to engage with the FCPF process through attending meeting and
committing resource and expertise.
ii) It is recommended that the FCPF cross Whitehall team focus attention on seeking further
improvements to the:

speed at which countries move through the Readiness process, and

the Carbon Fund to ensure its success. This includes assessing ERPINs, reviewing
process, and participating in meetings.
5. Value for Money
5.1 Performance on VfM measures
The following section sets out value for money measures against each of the CIF programmes and
provides a brief update on the other two programmes assessed in the Annual Review (CBFF, FCPF).
A. CIFs
As very few CIF projects are yet to deliver tangible results, performance on VfM measures is based on
expected results. Additionally, as funding for CIF programs is only transferred to MDBs on the basis of
need, admin costs and fees are frontloaded and appear high relative to cash transfers25. In fact, the
CIF admin unit is relatively low cost compared to other similar funds26 - the costs of MDBs for
implementing projects - at 5.3% of projects costs – is low or comparable to that of other funds. The
Australian multilateral aid review also found the CIFs to have a very low administrative-cost-to-funding
ratio compared with other multilateral organisations.27
In some instances, expected results cannot be given across all funds / programmes. An explanation is
provided where this is the case. An update on financial leverage of the CIFs is also provided.
The following analysis looks across the CIF programmes from a 3 Es perspective (Economy,
Efficiency, Effectiveness – and cost-effectiveness).
Information has been drawn from teams
developing business cases and is based on programmes at very different stages of implementation;
this has necessarily resulted in different levels of analysis. However, this is a significant improvement
against previous Annual Reviews.
25
It should be noted that the administrative budgets and fees do not include project preparation grants; these are
generally recipient-executed and thus the grant is provided to recipient countries.
26 It should be noted that the CIF Admin function does not include those that some comparable funds undertake
such as quality assurance, so rates are not directly comparable.
27 Australian Multilateral Assessment (March 2012): Climate Investment Funds (CIFs)
37 | P a g e
Clean Technology Fund (CTF)
Economy (i.e. Are we or our agents buying inputs of the appropriate quality at the right price?)
Admin & management fees are considered as an economy indicator of value for money. As of 30 June
201328, the MDB costs for implementation support and project supervision were $13m. Administrative
costs were $31m. There was a further $1m in other costs. In total, cumulative admin and management
costs were $45m. In comparison to total project approvals ($2,424m), the cost of program and project
related administration costs represent 1.86% of cumulative funding decisions.
Efficiency (i.e. How well do we or our agents convert inputs into outputs?)
Total co-financing leverage ratio is considered as an efficiency indicator of value for money. This is
because leverage allows UK inputs to deliver far larger outputs than using CTF finance alone. In
201329 DECC calculated that the total co-financing leverage ratio ranges between 0.5 and 25.68, the
central estimate being 6.94. This ratio was based on information from all 30 projects that had been
MDB approved at that time. MDBs and other (non-CTF) donors accounted for 50%, national
governments 22% and the private sector 28%.
Speed of disbursement is considered an efficiency indicator of value for money here. This is because
the longer it takes to convert our inputs into outputs, the lower the value of these outputs. As of 31 Dec
2012, actual project disbursements ($364m) as a percentage of total project approvals ($2.3bn) were
calculated at 15.8%30. We will use this as a baseline to report against in next year’s annual review.
Effectiveness (i.e. How well are the outputs from an intervention achieving the desired outcome?)
As noted in Output 2 above, there is relatively limited information to assess the effectiveness of the
CTF to date. As of 15 March 201331, the CTF Trust Fund Committee has already approved $2.3 billion
in funding for 33 projects. The CTF is expected to contribute towards projects that:

deliver reduced CO2 emissions of 594 MTCO2e.

secure $19.2bn in co-financing from governments, MDBs, and other sources including the
private sector. 36% of co-financing for these projects comes from private sector sources.

deliver 6.4GW of additional installed renewable energy capacity (from 13 projects)

deliver annual energy savings of 4,492 GWh of annual energy savings (from 3 projects)
This information is taken from the CTF semi-annual operational report.
There are some early actual results from CTF funded Investment Plans. This includes projects under
the Turkey CTF Investment Plan which was one of the first Investment Plans to receive endorsement
from the Trust Fund Committee. A recent independent impact assessment report32 published in 2013
and commissioned by the implementing MDBs (IFC, IBRD and EBRD) states that:
28
Clean Technology Fund: Financial Report prepared by the Trustee (as of June 30, 2013)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-climate-fund-business-case-and-interventionsummary-additional-75-million-contribution-to-the-clean-technology-fund
30 CIF Disbursement Report, March 2013: http://fiftrustee.worldbank.org/webroot/data/CIF_SCF_DISB_12_12.pdf)
and Report on the financial status of the CTF, May 2013:
http://fiftrustee.worldbank.org/webroot/data/CIF_CTF_TR_12_12.pdf
29
31
https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/CTF_TFC.11_3_CTF_semi_annu
al_operational_report..pdf, page 13
32 Econoler (2013) Impact Assessment report of Clean Technology Fund in Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency Market in Turkey
38 | P a g e

“according to the latest available disbursement information (as of end-September 2012),USD 149.5
million of CTF funds has leveraged a total of USD 1.38 billion in project investment, which is an
impressive 1:9 leverage ratio.” (p. 12)

“since the program’s inception, CTF has contributed to saving over 2 million tons of CO2 equivalents,
on an annual basis. If calculated based on the entire lifespan of the projects, the CTF funds are
expected to contribute to saving more than 43 million tCO2eq” (p. 20).

“It is clear that the CTF supported project investments contribute to avoided imports of 902 million
ton or USD 568 million per annum, which is a sizeable step towards less reliance on energy imports
for Turkey” (p. 22).
Cost-effectiveness (i.e. How much impact does an intervention achieve relative to the inputs that we or
our agents invest put in?)
The central cost-effectiveness estimate is based on a sub-set of the 30 projects. It is calculated by
donor cost divided by the tonnes of CO2 abated. Out of the 30 projects, the least cost-effective
scenario is reported as £251/tCO2e. A number of the projects report cost-effectiveness rates below
£5/tCO2e. Overall, the central cost-effectiveness value is calculated at of £12.1/tCO2e33.
The cost-effective breakeven point is £23.4/tCO2e34, below which the UK’s investment in the CTF
returns a positive NPV and BCR above 1 to the UK investment under the partial analysis carried out
here. It is to be noted, that the analysis carried out here is partial and it is difficult to quantify a number
of wider technological, demonstration, learning and welfare impacts.
Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program (SREP)
Economy (i.e. Are we or our agents buying inputs of the appropriate quality at the right price?)
Admin & management fees are considered as an economy indicator of value for money. As of 30 June
201335, the MDB costs for implementation support and project supervision were $4m. Investment Plan
preparation costs were $2m. Project preparation grants were $10m. Administrative costs were $12m.
In total, cumulative admin and management costs were $28m. In comparison to total project approvals
($46m), the cost of program and project related administration costs represent 61% of cumulative
funding decisions. As the programme matures, we anticipate that this percentage will come down
significantly as more projects are approved under SREP. Many of these costs such as project
preparation grants and investment plans are front loaded as well. These costs could also arguably be
classified as programme development rather than administration and management costs.
As a comparison, there are plans for $330m36 of expenditure on Investment plans ($240m) and the
private sector set aside ($90m). When cumulative admin and management costs to date ($28m) are
shown as a percentage of anticipated project expenditure ($330m), this gives 8.5%. Despite many
costs being front loaded, as this estimate only uses cumulative funding approvals to date, 8.5% should
be considered a low estimate for eventual administrative and management fees.
Efficiency (i.e. How well do we or our agents convert inputs into outputs?)
The expected leverage ratio from projects that have and will be developed under SREP endorsed
country investment plans is 1:7.29. 12% of this from the private sector and the rest from MDBs and
government sources.
Speed of disbursement is considered an efficiency indicator of value for money. This is because the
33
At 100% additionality.
Based on the central leverage estimate of 8.4 and central carbon prices.
35 Strategic Climate Fund: Financial Report prepared by the Trustee (as of December 31, 2013)
36 SREP Semi Annual Operational Report, April 2013:
https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/SREP_SC.9_3_SREP_semi_ann
ual_operational_report.pdf
34
39 | P a g e
longer it takes to convert our inputs into outputs, the lower the value of these outputs. As of 31 Dec
2012, actual project disbursements ($1.2m) as a percentage of total project approvals ($34m) were
calculated at 3.5%37. We would expect this percentage to increase significantly as the programme
matures We will look to use this as a benchmark for next year’s annual report.
Effectiveness (i.e. How well are the outputs from an intervention achieving the desired outcome?)
As noted in Output 2 above, there is relatively limited information to assess the effectiveness of the
SREP to date. It should also be noted that the robustness of this information is also weak at present as
projects have not undergone more detailed due diligence and appraisal. As of 15 March 2013, $239m
of SREP financing is expected to contribute towards the following results from 23 projects
(within 8 Investment Plans):

Develop 593.1 MW of renewable energy capacity (from 16 projects).

Secure $1.729bn in co-financing from governments, MDBs, and other sources including the
private sector.

Lead to improved energy access for 1.78m people (from 7 projects), including cookstoves for
50,000 people
Cost-effectiveness (i.e. How much impact does an intervention achieve relative to the inputs that we or
our agents invest put in?)
The central cost-effectiveness estimate is based on data provided in the SCF semi-annual report on 23
approved and unapproved projects under six approved country investment plans38. It is calculated by
donor cost divided by the tonnes of CO2 abated. Out of the projects modelled, the most and least costeffective scenarios are reported as £93.56/tCO2e and £8.81/tCO2e respectively. The central estimate is
calculated as £21.83/tCO2e.
Forest Investment Program (FIP)
Admin & management fees are considered as an economy indicator of value for money. As of 31
December 201339, the MDB costs for implementation support and project supervision were $6m.
Investment Plan preparation costs were $2m. Project preparation grants were $8m. Administrative
costs were $16m. In total, cumulative admin and management costs were $32m. In comparison to total
project approvals ($57m), the cost of program and project related administration costs represent 56%
of cumulative funding decisions. As the programme matures, we anticipate that this percentage will
come down significantly as more projects are approved under FIP. Many of these costs such as project
preparation grants and investment plans are front loaded as well which makes this figure appear very
high at present. These costs could also arguably be classified as programme development rather than
administration and management costs.
As a comparison, there are plans for $526m40 of expenditure on Investment plans ($420m), the
dedicated grant mechanism ($50m) and the private sector set aside ($56m). When cumulative admin
and management costs to date ($32m) are shown as a percentage of anticipated project expenditure
($526m), this gives 6%. Despite many costs being front loaded, as this estimate only uses cumulative
37
CIF Disbursement Report, March 2013: http://fiftrustee.worldbank.org/webroot/data/CIF_SCF_DISB_12_12.pdf
and Report on the financial status of the SCF, April 2013:
http://fiftrustee.worldbank.org/webroot/data/CIF_SCF_TR_12_12.pdf
38 This data is subject to change as un-approved projects under country investment plans are approved and the
data becomes more reliable.
39 Strategic Climate Fund: Financial Report prepared by the Trustee (as of December 31, 2012)
40 FIP Semi Annual Operational Report, April 2013:
https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/FIP_SC.10_3_FIP_semi_annual_
operational_report_0.pdf
40 | P a g e
funding approvals to date, 6% should be considered a low estimate for eventual administrative and
management fees.
For comparison, the United Nations Environmental Programme has historically achieved an 11.3%
administrative cost burden, as a share of total project approvals41.
Efficiency (i.e. How well do we or our agents convert inputs into outputs?)
Leverage: An analysis based for the CIF concept note based on data of the FIP Admin Unit indicates a
weighted average of leverage of 2.5:1. This is mainly constituted by public sector co-finance. Private
sector leverage in the forest sector is generally quite low.
Speed of disbursement: As of 31 Dec 2012, actual project disbursements ($1.3m) as a percentage of
total project approvals ($65m) were calculated at 2%42. Once the initial programme phases are
completed for FIP countries, increasing numbers of projects will be approved and we expect the
disbursal rates to increase accordingly. We will look to use this as a benchmark for next year’s annual
review.
Effectiveness (i.e. How well are the outputs from an intervention achieving the desired outcome?)
It is too early to provide an indication of potential results as highlighted under Output 2 the FIP is
currently going through a process to identify common indicators that can be used to aggregate results
across Investment Plans. Once that has been achieved (Nov 2013), information should become
available (in time for the next annual review).
Cost-effectiveness (i.e. How much impact does an intervention achieve relative to the inputs that we or
our agents invest put in?)
An analysis based for the CIF concept note based on data of the FIP Admin Unit indicates a weighted
average cost of $4.9 to sequester a tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases, ranging
from $1-$48 per tonne depending on the project. While this is already highly cost-effective from a
greenhouse gas sequestration perspective, FIP projects also achieve significant co-benefits such as
biodiversity conservation, protection of ecosystem services and the improvement of livelihoods for
forest-dependent people. Overall, FIP is targeting an area of tropical forest larger than 3.5 million
hectares, to ensure that it is protected and its non-monetised benefits are preserved.
Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR)
Economy (i.e. Are we or our agents buying inputs of the appropriate quality at the right price?)
In the case of PPCR economy is judged against HMG Management costs, operational costs, project
management fees and project execution costs.

HMG management costs. Considered Satisfactory. HMG management costs for the PPCR are
high relative to the other multilateral funds at 0.7 FTE; however this does reflect the relatively
larger contribution and UK burden share of PPCR relative to the other funds.

Operational costs. Considered Strong. From inception to December 31st 2012, the Strategic
Climate Fund (SCF) Trust Fund Committee, of which the PPCR is a sub-fund, has approved
administrative budgets totalling $51 million against cumulative funding decisions of $468m or
10.9%.43 While this appears high, this figure also covers administration of the Forests
UNEP Executive Committee Report (2011): “2012 core unit costs for UNDP, Unido and the World Bank, and
administrative cost regime for the 2012-2014 triennium.”
42 CIF Disbursement Report, March 2013: http://fiftrustee.worldbank.org/webroot/data/CIF_SCF_DISB_12_12.pdf
and Report on the financial status of the SCF, April 2013:
http://fiftrustee.worldbank.org/webroot/data/CIF_SCF_TR_12_12.pdf
43 Trustee report on the financial status of the Strategic Climate Fund which includes the Forest Investment
Program and the Program for Scaling up Renewable Energy in Low Income Countries (SREP), April 2013 Page 4
41
41 | P a g e
Investment Programme and Scaling up Renewable Energy Programme. The cumulative
funding decisions for the PPCR constitute over 75% of the SCF which would suggest that the
PPCR has benefited from the majority of the administrative budget. The ratio of administration
over projected total funding is 3.2%. The 2011 Multilateral Aid Review (MAR) found that
administration costs of the Climate Investment Funds are guided by the principles of VFM,
reasonableness and transparency44.

Project management fees Considered Strong. The MAR found that in comparison with other
agencies and funds with a similar management structure (such as GEF and GAVI)45, the CIFs
are less costly and more efficient (with a lower admin cost/project funding ratio)46 The MAR
estimates that the programme administration costs of the CIFs was just 2% of total project
funding over the period 2009 – 2014. The central administrative budget includes the costs of
administrative services for the Trustee, the MDBs and the CIFs Admin Unit.

Project execution costs. Considered Strong. Since inception to December 31 2012, MDB cost
for project implementation services was $19m against approved funding for project preparation,
and projects of $356m, or 5.3%. This figure looks relatively low in relation to the Adaptation
Fund and similar to that of the LDCF and SCCF47.
Efficiency (i.e. How well do we or our agents convert inputs into outputs?)
Factors considered include speed of disbursement, speed of project development and decisionmaking, progress against objectives, and progress against planned outputs.

Speed of disbursement of funds Considered Satisfactory. The PPCR has been in operation
since 2008 (5 years). To March 2013, of $97 million of the $356 in approved budgets had been
disbursed (27%)48. This is compared against the other funds in figure 2.

Time from endorsement to approval Considered Satisfactory. As of March 2013, 26 projects
had been approved for funding by the Sub-Committee. Of the 26 approved projects, 21 have
been subsequently approved by the relevant MDB within 6 months, and the remaining 5
projects approved within 6- 9 months. Of the MDB approved projects, more than 75% are on
target to meet the agreed benchmark for delivery within 6 months, the remaining expected to
deliver within 9 months.49,50

Progress against broad objectives Considered Satisfactory. By May 2013, all nine single
country PPCR country pilots have endorsed investment plans, and are at different stages of
implementation. All nine countries within the two regional pilots (Pacific and Caribbean) have
completed their SPCRs. By May 2013, 40% of the projects and programs in the PPCR portfolio
had received funding approval by the Trust Fund committee and are moving forward in a timely
manner, while 60% are still in preparation prior to funding approval by the PPCR SubCommittee. However, 92% of these later projects and programs have fallen behind, suggesting
that a significant portion of the remaining projects and programs in the PPCR pipeline are
facing challenges. Reasons for delays include institutional and capacity barriers, procurement
and unforeseen circumstances such as extreme climate events (floods; typhoons) or political
instabilities in project preparation51.
44
DFID Multilateral Aid Review (2011)
It should be noted that the CIF Admin function does not include those that some comparable funds undertake
such as quality assurance, so rates are not directly comparable.
46 DFID Multilateral Aid Review (2011)
47 Trustee report on the financial status of the Strategic Climate Fund April 2013 page 15
48 Trustee report on the financial status of the Strategic Climate Fund April 2013
49 PPCR Semi- Annual operational report, PPCR/SC.12/, Table 1
50 Presentation at the sub-committee updated information in Semi-Annual Operational Report hence difference
between number of projects approved by MDBs
51 PPCR Semi- Annual operational report, PPCR/SC.12/,
45
42 | P a g e

Progress against planned outputs Considered Satisfactory. The PPCR was reviewed by DFID
as part of the annual review of the Environment Transformation Fund52 in June 2012. Three
outputs from the DFID logical framework were “meeting expectations”, one output is “exceeding
expectations” and two are “moderately not meeting expectations”.53 (However these outputs
were developed prior to agreement of the PPCR results framework in November 2012). Though
good progress has been made on investment plan and project design, country programmes are
yet to see results on the ground and have not started to report against the five core indicators in
the PPCR results framework.
Effectiveness (i.e. How well are the outputs from an intervention achieving the desired outcome?)
Factors considered include influence on the international architecture, promoting progress in
negotations, developing the building blocks for adaptation, and focussing on addressing adaptation in
countries which are highly vulnerable and poor.

Architecture Considered Strong. Support to the PPCR gives a clear signal that building climate
resilient plans with programmatic support is UK preferred approach, and that adaptation funds
need to prioritise based on vulnerability. The CIFs have worked up a range of useful principles
across the different CIF design documents for example on measurable outcomes, a results
based approach, country led, leveraging private sector and co-benefits such as empowering
women. The CIFs structure, which is largely thematic (CTF/SREP – LCD/Mitigation, PPCR –
Adaptation, Forest Investment Programme (FIP) – Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and
Forest Degradation (REDD)), provides valuable lessons for adopting a similar or modified
structure for the GCF. However, there are concerns around lack of country ownership54, 55and
the lack of engagement of local stakeholders in the implementation of the climate investment
funds.56

Support to climate negotiations Considered Satisfactory. Support to PPCR demonstrates UK
support for adaptation. However, a limited number of countries receive funds, and use of loans
and lack of choice over implementing partners are of concern to many developing countries in
negotiations. 57

Develops the building blocks for adaptation Considered Strong. The PPCR has a strong
technical assistance component and focus on developing climate resilient pathways. The PPCR
is piloting investment at scale with projects of between $50-110m. As shown in figure 9 below,
the PPCR has a smaller number of large projects relative to the other funds – there is therefore
very strong potential to demonstrate results from scaled up support to key sectors. As shown in
figure 4, there is a strong focus on the UK priority sectors for adaptation.

Focus on highly vulnerable and poor and scaled-up support in key sectors Considered Strong.
The PPCR Sub-committee convened an Expert Group of inter-disciplinary internationally
recognised senior professionals to make recommendations on country selection for the pilot
program based on: (i) transparent vulnerability criteria; (ii) country preparedness and ability to
move towards climate resilient development plans; and (iii) country distribution across regions
and types of hazards (as appropriate to a pilot program). The 9 country and 2 regional PPCR
countries who were selected for pilot programmes include 8 least developed countries and 9
small island developing states However the PPCR is only a pilot, so small number of countries
52
Environmental Transformation Fund
Annual review of the Climate Investment Funds (formerly the Environmental Transformation Fund)
54 Climate Investment Funds (2013), Progress Report on the Measures to Improve the Operations of the CIF, page
6
55 DFID (2013) Multilateral Aid Review Update 2013: Climate Investment Funds (in Draft)
56 Climate Investment Funds (2012, Enhancing Country Coordination Mechanisms, MDB Collaboration and
Stakeholder Engagement in CIF programs
57 IIED (2013), Climate Investment Funds: understanding the PPCR in Bangladesh and Nepal
53
43 | P a g e
at present. Of the 9 PPCR country pilots, 4 were identified as ICF priority countries for
adaptation (Bangladesh, Mozambique, Nepal and Yemen) and of the two regional PPCR
programmes; the Caribbean is a priority region for adaptation in the ICF.
B. CBFF:
Logistical constraints of the Congo Basin and weak technical capacity of partners mean that
the “costs of doing business” are overall relatively high in comparison to other regions. The
management and administration of small projects is also much more expensive than large
ones. However, during project selection the GC made it made it clear that it was important
that the CBFF builds the capacity of small local NGOs. The CBFF has therefore played an
important role in providing project financing to small local NGOs that would otherwise not have
such an opportunity.
Overall, low disbursement and relatively high admin costs of the CBFF have led us to
conclude that the value for money of the current model, including the current FMA consortium
is weak. This will be reviewed at the next GC meeting in September 2013 and it is likely that
new partnerships and management arrangements for the CBFF will be required to ensure the
CBFF is fit for purpose over the long term.
A Portfolio review has also made a number of recommendations to improve value for money
and these will be considered at the next GC meeting – these include consolidation of the
CBFF portfolio, a new FMA model to manage smaller grants, or a narrower focus on larger
grants.
C. FCPF
Economy (i.e. Are we or our agents buying inputs of the appropriate quality at the right price?)
The costs and estimated costs to administer the FCPF Readiness Fund.
FY09-13 Actual costs
FY14 Budgeted costs
FY15-20 Projected costs
29.2
10.6
33.6
Estimated costs of the Readiness Fund by year FY15-FY20
FY
$m
FY15
8.1
FY16
7.8
FY17
5.5
FY18
4.7
FY19
4.0
FY20
3.5
Total
33.6
These costs consist of administrative, operational, and country support. They total US$74m
against a fund capitalisation of US$260. Total running costs are 28% which are high compared
to the CIFs. The World Bank does not provide data for individual fixed costs.
44 | P a g e
The costs and estimated costs to administer the FCPF Carbon Fund
The graph below shows the estimated costs (fixed and programme) for the FCPF Carbon
Fund. Total costs amount to $31m out of a fund of $390m. The cost of running the Carbon
Fund is around 8% of capitalisation, which are comparable to the CIFs Strategic Climate Fund
(not the Clean Technology Fund, which is lower).
Uses of Funds
(cumulated values)
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
ER Payments
Net Advances
Total Costs
50.0
0.0
Efficiency (i.e. How well do we or our agents convert inputs into outputs?)
As of October 2013, donors had pledged about US$650m to the FCPF (US$260m for the
Readiness Fund and US$391m for the Carbon Fund. Thus, the Facility exceeded its original
capitalisation targets set for both Funds in 2007 — $100 million for the Readiness Fund and
$200 million for the Carbon Fund. However, the recently revised target of US$300 million for
the Readiness Fund has not been met, whereas the recently revised target of US$350 million
for the Carbon Fund has been exceeded. The FCPF did not set capitalisation targets for
private-sector contributions: it set a goal of attracting two private-sector participants, which it
achieved.
The external evaluation noted that the “rate and timeliness of disbursements appear[ed] to be
the most challenging aspect of the FCPF to date.” It also drew attention to the fact that the
average wait time from the date of submission of the final version of an RPP until the signing
of a grant agreement was 13.4 months and attributed this both to Bank procedures and to the
need for countries to identify additional financing sources for the implementation of their RPPs. However, of the 36 countries who joined the Readiness Fund in 2008, 32 have now
submitted RPPs. All of these are expected to have received a readiness preparation grant by
May 2014. While it has not happened as soon as hoped, it represents 32 developing countries
that have a clear plan how to achieved readiness and will receive funding to implement their
proposals by next year.
Effectiveness (i.e. How well are the outputs from an intervention achieving the desired
outcome?)
By October 2013, the Facility had approved formulation grants (valued at US$200,000) for 32
of the 36 REDD Country Participants and preparation grants of US$3.4–3.8m for ten of these.
45 | P a g e
The Facility has been heavily oversubscribed from the outset. The original target number of
REDD Country Participants was 20, but in its first year of operations, the Facility had already
admitted 37 forested developing countries. Eleven additional countries are currently seeking
membership of which four are expected to be included next year.
5.2 Commercial Improvement and Value for Money
CIF projects are implemented by MDBs, which increases efficiency and reduces costs by using MDBs’
established infrastructure, policies and procedures. The implementing agencies include the World Bank
Group (WBG), the African Development Bank (AfDB), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the Inter-American Development
Bank (IADB). These MDBs were selected as partners of the CIFs due to their involvement in the Clean
Energy Investment Framework (CEIF), an initiative that responded to a G8 request in 2005 for an
Investment Framework on climate change, clean energy and sustainable development.
As CIF programmes are implemented by MDBs, they follow MDB procurement policies and
procedures. Multilateral Aid Review (MAR) findings in 2011 related to the relevant MDBs’ approach to
procurement, in terms of whether procurement is driven by cost control, targets for procurement
savings, and monitoring and reporting on prices.
Overall, the MDB approach to procurement aims to ensure open and fair competition in all tenders, and
to procure high quality goods and services at the lowest cost. Procurement of goods and services goes
through International Competitive Bidding (with limited exceptions). The MAR, however, notes that
these procurement procedures are criticised by recipients and donors for their imposition of high
transaction costs, delays, and uncompetitive prices.
Measures are being taken by the MDBs to address concerns; for example, the World Bank has begun
a review of its procurement policies and practices to address these concerns and better align
procurement with the World Bank’s development objectives.
The UK is engaging fully with the World Bank to ensure that this review addresses the issues about
which we are concerned. This includes the possibility of using country systems to lower transactions
costs and avoid duplication, which is dependent upon robust, rigorous systems that meet international
standards being in place.
The MDBs work together on procurement rules and standards, and use systems in similar ways.
Therefore the recommendations from the World Bank study will be adopted by all the banks.
The key administrative cost drivers are staff costs for the CIF Administrative Unit; travel arrangements;
the CIF Partnership Forum; and project related administrative costs incurred by the MDBs. These
administrative costs are being addressed through managing the size, skill sets and grade levels of the
staff complement of the CIF Administrative Unit to ensure cost-effective delivery of responsibilities;
actively pursuing the use of electronic communications, video and teleconferencing; moving the
Partnership Forum to every 18 months instead of annually (annual budget savings estimated at over
$300,000); and requiring annual reporting on to the Trust Fund Committee on the use of project related
administrative costs.
The following table provides summary data indicating the size of a number of multilateral organisations
and funds in 2011 to benchmark the CIFs:
Summary data indicating the size of a number of multilateral funds and organisations in 201158
58
Reproduced from: Green Climate Fund. Business Model Framework: Structure and Organisation. Published
June 2013
46 | P a g e
Organisation
Global Fund
GAVI Alliance
GEF
Adaptation Fund
CIFs
World Bank
ADB
Net Disbursements
(US$ million)
2,741
1,240
739
4061
1,082
15,775
3,558
Administrative expenses
(US$ million)59
228
37
47
5.4
24
2,005
484
Approximate number of
personnel employed
612
125
9460
662
863
9,000
3,045
At an institutional level, the UK is engaging with MDB implementing agencies as a shareholder to drive
improvements in cost and value consciousness where appropriate. In the table below, the MAR 2011
assessment for cost and value consciousness for the MDB implementing agency is provided as well as
a progress rating from the MAR update where cost and value consciousness was identified as a reform
priority:
MDB
IADB64
IFC65
AsDF66
(in lieu
of
AsDB)
MAR
2011
Score
Good
VFM
MAR Reform Area
Progress Rating 2013
Improving cost and
value consciousness in
administration budgets
and in project design
Some progress - Information related to the budget
and work program has improved, but more progress
is needed on a dialogue with partners on programme
cost effectiveness.
Good
VFM
Good
VFM
N/A
N/A
Support to partners to
achieve value for
money and striving to
reduce administration
costs
Improved effectiveness
in administration
budgets and value for
money in programmes
Some progress - There has been progress on
business processes, including procurement capacity
and reporting on portfolio performance but limited
evidence of efficiency gains in programmes.
N/A
N/A
AfDF67
(in lieu
of
AfDB)
Good
VFM
IDA68
(in lieu
of
Good
VFM
Some progress - There have been improvements in
the costs of transactions and speed of delivery of
AfDF projects – notably in fragile states. However,
there is limited progress in improving the dialogue
with clients on lower cost options in policy and
programme choices.
59
This does not include fees paid to implementing entities or local agents.
Central staff are supported by the World Bank for administrative functions.
61 Estimates based on grant approvals and cumulative disbursement data.
62 Six staff in the Secretariat are supported by and Accreditation Panel, a Trustee, the World Bank and the GEF
administrative functions.
63 Eight staff in the Secretariat are support by the World Bank for administrative functions. The CIFs are governed
by sub-committees consisting of representatives of both funders and recipients.
64 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223809/IADB__Summary_Assessment__final_.pdf
65 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223810/IDA__Summary_Assessment__final_.pdf
66 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223805/AsDF__Summary_Assessment__final_.pdf
67 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223804/AfDF__Summary_Assessment__final_.pdf
68 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224875/IDA.pdf
60
47 | P a g e
IBRD)
EBRD69 Very
Good
VFM
A more explicit focus on
cost-effectiveness in
administration budgets
and project design
Some progress - Assessment is from a high base.
Progress is evident in: i) more transparent cost
cutting and re-prioritisation during the 2013 budget
process; ii) seeking cost-sharing opportunities for
technical cooperation activities; and iii) moving
towards a strategic approach to procurement, away
from a transactional approach.
CBFF
The CBFF is implemented through the AfDB and the comments above are therefore relevant
to the CBFF.
DFID needs to work closely with all the partners of the CBFF, and particularly the AfDB to
ensure an appropriate consideration of value for money moving forward, particularly with
regards to the admin and operational costs. The current FMA contract ends at the end of
February 2014. A decision needs to be taken as to whether this contract should renew or be
retendered. The CBFF Secretariat are currently reviewing options for FMA management of
small grants and for DFID will ensure that value for money is an important criteria in the
decision making progress.
Conclusion
Despite limited information for some of the Funds, this review suggests that the CIFs continue
to offer good value for money overall. Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that slower
than anticipated disbursement may weaken the value for money of the CIFs. This will remain
key focus area for the next reporting period.
However it is noted that CBFF offers weak value for money and further steps are being taken
to improve partnerships and management arrangements.
Recommendation
Over the next 12 months it will be important to benchmark improvements against data
reported in the value-for-money review.
6. Conclusions and actions
Section A of this Annual Review overall has indicated that:
A. The CIFs are largely still at the stage of project approval, rather than project implementation.
Reaching this point and subsequent disbursement of funds has taken longer than expected,
although as highlighted in the review measures are being put in place to address this. Good
progress has been made on defining the results frameworks for 3 of the CIFs, however, until the
end of this calendar year it is still too early to have a credible picture of what the aggregated
69
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223808/EBRD__Summary_Assessment__final_.pdf
48 | P a g e
results across the programmes will look like. However, initial aggregation of expected results
does suggest that significant results will be achieved. The review also demonstrates that over
the last year the CIFs have continued to make good progress against the reform and
improvement priorities.
B. This annual review of the combined funding provided through the Environmental Transformation
Fund provides a summary of progress with the CBFF and indicates that some progress has
been made to improve its operational performance, in particular by the CBFF Secretariat. While
there has been some good progress against some CBFF projects, many challenges remain to
project implementation, and it is still unclear whether the CBFF offers good value for money.
C. The annual review suggests that for the FCPF the FCPF Readiness Fund has proved fertile
ground for developing ideas that inform international REDD+ negotiations. However, its impact
has been more limited in terms of innovation in finding solutions to identified challenges of forest
governance and deforestation. The readiness activities supported by the fund in country have
been criticised as having limited traction and impact in participant countries. The activities are
relatively small-scale, and there is little appetite within the fund to provide support for a sectorwide planning process in the forest sector. Public and private funds have been leveraged to
support implementation, but at varying degrees depending on country.
Overall countries are making good progress towards readiness. The deadline which all
participating countries are expected to have their RPPs approved and preparation grants signed
is May 2014, which is expected to lead to a significant uptick in disbursements in the run up to
that date.
Overall, the first section of this Annual Review, which is dealing with 3 separately governed
instruments, with independent projects, highlights the difficulty of reviewing progress at the output
level of such distinct funding mechanisms. While the intent of providing funding through these 3
Funds was undoubtedly justified at the time of approving the Environmental Transformation Fund
(ETF) funding, carrying out a combined annual monitoring review of progress is not justified. In the
future as projects – particularly within the CIFs are implemented and more results, issues and
lessons are likely, it will increasingly become incongruous to review the two smaller funding
components of the FCPF and CBFF together with the CIFs.
Section B of this Annual Review overall has indicated that:
Progress has been made since the last annual review in developing separate logframes or results
frameworks for the CIFs, CBFF and FCPF. In addition to the concluding comment above, this
should make carrying out separate annual reviews on each fund easier in subsequent years.
A significant saving to HMG was made in 2013 with the delay in the encashment schedule for the
CIFs. In the run up to the 2014 encashment date a similar process will also need to be carried out.
The last year has seen the CIF Independent Evaluation underway. The interim report of the
evaluation provides a significant amount of evidence used in this Annual Review and points to a
final evaluation report that should provide a very useful body of information for subsequent CIF
Annual Reviews. However, this annual review also points to further progress needed to ensure a
sufficient number of project level evaluations are being undertaken.
The last year has seen the establishment of the Enterprise Risk Management Framework as a CIF
wide portfolio risk management tool. This is a significant development. Over the next 12 months it
will be important to see this tool being actively used by CIF Governance to manage CIF risks.
The Value for Money assessment in this Annual Review concluded that the CIFs continue to offer
good value for money overall. Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that slower than
anticipated disbursement may weaken the value for money of the CIFs. This will remain key focus
area for the next reporting period.
49 | P a g e
Recommendations
The main recommendations from Section A are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The UK should continue to push for rapid project approval and disbursement. By the
time of the next annual review the UK will have assessed whether an over-programming
approach should be rolled out across the CIF funding windows and supported TFC
decisions to that end. The UK will also have consider whether setting/re-setting targets
is advisable.
The UK will push for the methodologies behind indicators and cost-effectiveness
measures needs to be clarified. The UK will also closely scrutinise the first set of formal
expected results due in December 2013. Output 2 should be fully revised in wording
and indicators by the time of the next review to reflect changes agreed in the CIF TFCs.
The UK will ask the CIF AU to make information available not just on learning products
available, but how they have been used and stakeholder satisfaction with these
products.
In time for the next Annual Review, Output 4 should be updated to cover all of the UK’s
reform priorities.
Over the next 12 months, the UK through participation on the FCPF governance
mechanism, the Participant’s Committee will use World Bank IEG recommendations to
encourage acceleration of the programme.
The Annual Reviews of the CBFF should be carried out separately from the CIFs (and
FCPF). This should be carried out by an external consultant next year.
The main recommendations from Section B are:
7.
8.
9.
To closely scrutinise the Final Report of the Independent Evaluation of the CIFs and
ensure progress is taken over the next 6 months to integrate evaluations into CIF
projects and programmes.
Regarding risk the UK should continue to engage with the ERM process as this
develops and is embedded into the CIFs and focus attention on two major project risks:
speed of project approvals and disbursement - with action required at the next CIF
meetings in November, and the CIFs demonstrating credible results – with further
development of, and work on, the results frameworks required.
Over the next 12 months it will be important to benchmark improvements against data
reported in the value-for-money review.
General recommendation:
10.
Based on the above concluding comments, it is recommended that in future years the
Annual Reviews of the CIFs, CBFF and FCPF are carried out separately. It is
recognised that this may not be possible within the Aries system, however, this
opportunity should be explored. If separation on the Aries system is not possible, then 3
separate reviews, at dates appropriate to each fund should be explored.
7. Review Process
This review was conducted and led within DFID’s Climate and Environment Department.
As the Environmental Transformation Fund (ETF) was, and International Climate Fund (ICF) is, jointly
funded by DECC, the International Climate Change department in DECC were widely consulted
throughout the review and provided substantial inputs which are reflected in the final review.
50 | P a g e
The contributions on the Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF) were provided by the Africa Regional
Department who lead on the CBFF.
The contributions on the forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) were provided by Forest and Land
Use team in DECC’s International Climate Change department, who now lead UK engagement on
FCPF.
Principle documentation that was examined as part of this review includes:


















CIFs
CIF business case in 2011
http://projects.dfid.gov.uk/iati/Document//3717537
CIF business case in 2012
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/200480/ICF_Busin
ess_Case_-_Additional_Contribution_to_the_Clean_Technology_Fund.pdf
CIF results frameworks
http://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/Joint%20Inf%20
2%20%20Implementation%20CIF%20results%20framework.pdf
CIF programme reports; including Semi-Annual, Annual, Financial and disbursement
https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/funds-and-programs
https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/docs
Interim Report of the Independent Evaluation of the CIFs
http://www.cifevaluation.org/news.html
CIF learning data and material
https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/learning-and-events
External reviews of trust fund management within MDBs
http://operationsevaluation.afdb.org/en/evaluations-publications/evaluation/trust-fundmanagement-at-the-african-development-bank-328/
DFID Multilateral Aid Review of the Climate Investment Funds
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/multilateral-aid-review
DFID Multilateral Aid Review Update 2013: Climate Investment Funds (in Draft)
Australian Multilateral Assessment (March 2012): Climate Investment Funds (CIFs)
http://www.ausaid.gov.au/partner/Documents/cifs-assessment.pdf
UNEP Executive Committee Report (2011): “2012 core unit costs for UNDP, Unido and the World
Bank, and administrative cost regime for the 2012-2014 triennium.”
Progress Report on Measures to Improve the operations of the CIF
https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/CTF_SCF_TFC
.10_Inf.3_Progress_Report_on_the_Measures_to_Improve.pdf
CBFF
A CBFF revised logframe (draft due for AfDB board approval September 2013). As noted above,
the original lograme did not establish milestones and has not been used as a planning tool or as
a basis for reporting. This review attempts to assess progress against the revised logframe as
far as possible, although we must recognise that this is challenging. The revised logframe
follows the standard AfDB standard format, and includes an extra layer of results. Table 1
outlines the relevant results levels and indicators from the revised logframe. We will report
primarily on CBFF immediate outcomes and use the AfDB outputs as the indicators for the
immediate outcomes.
OER action plan (developed in October 2012). This was agreed at the last GC meeting. The
overall objective of the plan was to improve performance of the existing portfolio.
2012 CBFF annual report (received July 2013) and the 2 quarterly reports received since the last
DFID annual review: 2012 4th Quarterly report (received January 2013), 2013 1st Quarterly report
(received April 2013),
Findings of the CBFF Donor mission (June 2013). The main objective of the mission was to
assess progress against the OER action plan.
51 | P a g e





CBFF Portfolio Review (received July 2013). During the donor mission to Tunis in June 2013,
donors requested a portfolio review be undertaken to provide a more analytical overview of the
portfolio as a whole and concrete recommendations for how performance of existing portfolio
could be improved.
CBFF Beneficiary survey (August 2013). As part of this review, we have also carried out a
beneficiary survey – which was sent out to all 40 CBFF grant beneficiaries. The purpose of this
survey was to gain direct beneficiary feedback on whether the OER action items have improved
CBFF grant management over the last 12 months.
Annual review mission to Tunis (August 2013). A DFID forestry advisor visited the CBFF
secretariat in Tunis in August 2013 to work with the team on results reporting under outputs 1-3.
FCPF
Global Program Review of the FCPF by the World Bank's Independent Evaluation Group
Annex A: Summary assessment of results against indicators in the CBFF logframe
1. The technical capacity of Congo Basin stakeholders for implementation of sustainable
management of multiple forest landscape resources and REDD+ is increased
Indicator 1.1: Local communities, including women, participate in sustainable management of
forests resources (incl. NTFPs and ecosystem services)
 Some good lessons are coming out of the Community forestry projects in Cameroon
highlighting their potential to ensure local communities are participating and benefitting from
sustainable management of forest resources. However, longer term support will be needed
to ensure the sustainability of this model. Overall, almost 21,000 people have been directly
involved in production, processing and/or sales organisations originating from the CBFF.
Lessons show that Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) are crucial for ensuring the
involvement of women in forest management decisions.
Indicator 1.2: Local communities participate actively in re- and afforestation
 Good progress is being made on community tree planting and there are early signs that it is
a cost-effective approach for involving communities in sustainable management of forest
resources. Overall, over 5 million seedlings will have been planted by the end of 2013.
However, only around 1500ha have been planted (though target on track for end of 2013).
Indicator 1.3: Knowledge of the forest resource is improved and employed in forest
management and policy design
 Some good progress has been made to improve knowledge of the forest resource –
including land use planning and zoning, both at a national and landscape level. Knowledge
and skills acquired is being used to inform forest management and policy.
 For example, in Gabon and the Republic of Congo, the CBFF is supporting national forestry
inventories and land use plans – In Congo this has involved the development of a national
map of forest resources for 1800 collection plots across the country.
 The CBFF is also supporting landuse planning at a landscape level. For example, in the
Maringa-Lopori-Wamba Landscape in DRC, under the Management and Innovative
sustainable Exploitation of Forest Resources (GEDIRF) project, the CBFF has supported the
development of a Participatory Land Use Plan (PLUP) for the K7 area (4000km² and an
estimated population of 25,000), which has been validated by all stakeholders. The plan
enables good use of space and resources, thereby reducing conflict and pressure on natural
resources. Particular attention was paid to the rights of vulnerable groups as well as
customary rights within the legal framework. Using the PLUP as a tool for cooperation and
collaboration, the GEDIRF project has helped strengthen relations between the pygmies and
Bantus. This participatory approach has been subsequently incorporated by provincial
authorities in the development of their environmental strategy. The lessons coming out of
52 | P a g e

this project (particularly around contracts with the communities to comply with the agreed
land use plans) are being used as a model for other REDD+ investments in DRC.
CBFF has partnered with RIFFEAC to provide support to 18 technical and training
institutions in 10 countries in the Congo Basin. The project implementation units for this
partnership are fully operational and have hit the ground running. In this regard, a baseline
study highlighting the needs of all 18 institutions over the course of this 3-years project has
already been completed and a robust selection process for the granting of scholarships has
been finalized and approved by the targeted institutions. Under this project, forty
scholarships for Masters and PhD studies in climate change and sustainable forest resource
management have been granted.
2. Improved forest governance in the Congo Basin promotes more equitable benefit sharing
among forest stakeholders, including women and ethnic minorities
Indicator 2.1 :An increased number of local communities enjoy common and secure forest
tenure
 Limited progress has been made, as necessary land tenure reforms are slow to be
implemented by COMIFAC countries and projects are marred by political instability in
eastern DRC and CAR. However CBFF has been able to support national studies on the
status of customary land law and forest law in Cameroon, Gabon and Republic of Congo
conducted and a national study of the legal framework of land and resource rights of local
communities in CAR to support the national land reform commissioned. The CBFF has also
facilitated the participation of civil society in on-going land tenure reform processes in
Cameroon and CAR.
Indicator 2.2 :Local communities participate actively in development and implementation of
benefit-sharing from forest-related activities
 36 out of the 37 on-going CBFF deal with livelihood and economic development – these vary
greatly in size, location and nature and the data is not available to report cumulatively on
progress. However, a number of CBFF projects are highlighting the potential to improve
livelihoods based on forest products and improved methods for agroforestry, though
experience to date shows that projects are underestimating the importance of developing
value chains alongside the community based activities.
Indicator 2.3: Models for sustainable management of forest landscapes, products and/or
services, which contribute to improved quality of life for forest-dependent communities, are
developed and implemented.
 2 alternative methods to firewood consumption have been developed and tested. For
example, in DRC under the project entitled Phasing out Slash-and-Burn Farming with
Biochar, some 250 farmers were trained on the use of biochar, a revolutionary fertilizer
which improves yield by an estimated 80%, thus minimizing the need to slash-and-burn
additional fields.
Indicator 2.4: NGO capacity to advocate for equitable sharing of benefits increased
 2 key CBFF projects are ensuring community participation is at the heart of REDD+ and that
multi-stakeholder approaches to REDD+ are being adopted in national strategies: With
CBFF support 4 out of 5 Congo Basin country NGO coalitions are active in REDD+
processes and consultations.
 Support is being provided to CSOs to ensure they are able to participate in national REDD+
consultations and more than 25 Congo Basin NGO coalitions and organisations now have a
good knowledge and understanding of REDD+
 However, despite the CBFF and other initiatives, the degree of “effectiveness” of civil society
involvement remains challenging as ongoing REDD+ processes in all Congo Basin countries
are not truly participatory (no access to information, consultations are often organized late,
no real FPIC, inputs are not taken into account etc.)
53 | P a g e
3. Congo Basin Institutions have increased capacity for implementing landscape level
sustainable management of forests and REDD+
Indicator 3.1: Pilot REDD+ projects have been implemented at local community level
 6 REDD+ Pilot projects have been endorsed by the CBFF Governing Council and are being
implemented in DRC. These projects are designed to (i) test REDD+ policy assumptions in
different sub ecosystems, (ii) build the capacity of local administration to manage and plan,
preserve the landscape, and (iii) increase awareness on REDD. Lessons learning will feed
into the national REDD+ strategy.
Indicator 3.2 :CB countries make progress on their national REDD+ Readiness Plans
 Through the project Regional Monitoring Reporting and Verification (MRV), CBFF is playing
a leading role to support REDD+ in Central Africa. By the end of the Phase I of the project,
all ten COMIFAC will have a legal framework for the development of REDD+ and will have
completed R-PINs for submission to FCPF) - a real breakthrough given seven of these
countries have not even embarked on the REDD process. By end of Phase II, these
countries will also have a MRV system in place. To date the project has established the
national and regional project implementation units (PIU) and have launched project activities
in each of the 10 COMIFAC countries.
 Under the Quantifying Carbon Stocks and Emissions in the Forests of the Congo Basin
project, the CBFF has contributed to strengthening the Satellite Observatory of Central
African Forest’s (OSFAC) as a Center of Excellence in REDD+ MRV.
Indicator 3.3 :Civil society plays an active national and regional role in experience-sharing and
promotion of sustainable forest landscape management and equitable sharing of resulting
benefits
 9 regional non-government CBFF projects are being implemented. These projects provide
support to civil society to ensure that they are able to participate in REDD+, to promote the
importance of land tenure rights across the basin, to explore models for reconciling logging
industry needs with those of forest-dependant people, and for strengthening the contribution
of non-wood forest products to food security in Central Africa.
4. CBFF Secretariat effectively supports achievement of desired impact
 A revised lograme has been developed. The CBFF Secretariat has made good progress on
the revision of the CBFF logframe, bringing together different stakeholder and donor
priorities. Its establishment is an important and positive step forward. It is expected to be
approved by the first AfDB board meeting in September 2013.
 The PIP action items are largely complete. However, it remains unclear how the measures
taken over the last 12 months have led to a fundamental change in operations and an
overall improvement in management of the existing portfolio.
 A portfolio review has been completed and made a number of good recommendations for
the Bank and GC that will improve operations and value for money if adopted.
 Grantees have perceived some improvement over the last 12 months. DFID undertook a
beneficiary survey as part of this annual review which has allowed a qualitative assessment
of grantee perceptions across a number of operational functions such as communications,
disbursements and procurement. Overall, grantees feel that there have been improvements
over the last 12 months, particularly with regards to procurement and financial support they
receive. However, more work is needed to improve disbursements and strengthen technical
supervision of projects.
54 | P a g e